CHOUDHARY SIA SARAN SINHA, J. 1. Criminal Appeal 20 in which one Upendra Singh is the sole appellant and Criminal Appeal 25 in which four persons, namely, Ram Swarath Singh, Molan Singh alias Shyam Narain Singh, Sri Narain Singh and Nawal Singh are the appellants, each of the year 1976, arise out of the Judgment dated 22.12.1975 of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga. They have been heard together with the consent of the parties and are going to be disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Alleging an occurrence on 11.5.1970 at about 6 P. M. one Deonath Singh (P. W. 3) lodged an information at the Tajpur Police Station in the district of Darbhanga in the night between 11th and 12th of May, 1970 at about 130 a. m., the Police Station Tajpur being at a distance of four miles from village Kubanna, the village where the occurrence took place. The first information report stands marked as Exhibit-3. 11 persons were arrayed as accused which included the five appellants of these two appeals above named. One of the co-accused Ram Padarath Singh was armed with parassa and the others with lathis. Ram Padarath Singh died before the commencement of the hearing of the session trial. Sri Narain Singh, appellant no. 3 of Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1976, has also died during the pendency of this appeal. The deceased, in the instant case, is one Shiv Shankar Singh, the full brother of the informant Deo Nath Singh (P. W. 3). In short, the allegations in the first information report were that the deceased Shiv Shanker Singh held a miscellaneous shop (LATKAINA KI DUKAN). At about the time of the occurrence, Co-accused Ram Padarath Singh went to his shop and asked for the sale of a copy (Exercise Book). The deceased did not agree to sell the exercise book at that time to Ram Padarath saying that on account of his return from Tajpur in Sun, he was feeling tired. This irritated Ram Padarath Singh. There was a wordy duel between the two. Ram Padarath threatened the deceased with consequences. He rushed to his house closely, took a granssa and went to the shop of the deceased. The other ten co-accused are also said to have followed him with lathi in their hands. There, at the shop, Ram Padarath Singh ordered the other co-accused to kill the deceased. Ram Padarath threatened the deceased with consequences. He rushed to his house closely, took a granssa and went to the shop of the deceased. The other ten co-accused are also said to have followed him with lathi in their hands. There, at the shop, Ram Padarath Singh ordered the other co-accused to kill the deceased. On this, appellant Ram Swarath Singh and other co-accused, armed with lathi, began assaulting the deceased with lathis. The deceased was empty handed. He tried to ward off the lathi blows being hurled on him with his hands. This lathi blows inflicted on him resulted in Shiv Shanker (the deceased) falling on the ground. After he fell down on the ground, co-accused Ram Padarath hurled a grassa blow on his head giving rise to profused bleeding. While this assault on the deceased was going on, the informant (P.W.3), his full brothers Gouri Shankar Singh (P.W. 1) and Shiv Nath Singh (P.W. 4) as also his mother (P.W. 2) went there to forbid the - accused persons from assaulting the deceased. Co-accused Ram Padarath ordered these persons also to be killed. On this co-accused Ram Padarath gave a parassa blow on the head of the informant and other co-accused also assaulted him with lathi. Co-accused Ram Dayal Singh and Surendra Singh assaulted P.W.1 with lathi. Some of the co-accused also assaulted P.W. 2. Thereupon co-accused Jamun Singh (since acquitted) ordered for the deceased being dragged down and he was dragged down to the darwaja of the informant by Appellants Ram Swarath Singh and Molan Singh where also the deceased was assaulted. The deceased was being carried to the Police Station but he succumbed to his injuries in the way and his dead body was carried to the Police Station by the informant, his brother Shiv Nath Singh (P.W. 4), his mother (P.W. 2) and others. 3. After recording the first information report, the investigating officer (I.O.) Awadh Kishore Prasad Sinha (P. W. 7) further examined the informant and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. 3. After recording the first information report, the investigating officer (I.O.) Awadh Kishore Prasad Sinha (P. W. 7) further examined the informant and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Though P. W. 2 and P. W. 4 were also present at the time of the recording of the first information report (Exhibit -3), they were not examined by the I.O. that night In the early next morning, the I. O. proceeded for the place of occurrence after making arrangement for post mortem examination being held over the dead body of the deceased. The post mortem examination was performed by Gopal Prasad (P.W. 5). exhibit being the post mortem report. The doctor found four ante mort en injuries on the person of the deceased, details where of will follow and opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage caused by those injuries, The I.O. examined certain witnesses after reaching the place of occurrence and arrested some of the co-accused who were available in their house. Ultimately, charge sheet was submitted against all the 11 accused and after commitment, accused persons had to face trial before the sessions court. 4. Co-accused Ram Padarath being dead by then, charges under the three heads, namely, under section 302/34, 147 and 323, each under the Indian Penal Code, were framed against all the ten co-accused including the five appellants before us. Appellants Ram Swarath Singh, Molan Singh and two co-accused Ram Bau Singh and Sheo Ji Singh were also charged under section 109/302 and under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges as framed. They examined two formal witnesses to prove certain documents in respect of the defence put forward by them. The defence, in substance, was that they were innocent and have been falsely implicated on account of enmity. The deceased and his three brothers, namely, P.W.s l, 3 and 4 used to quarrel among themselves and indulge in assault and they did not even spare their mother (P.W.2). The defence further was that the deceased might have received injuries at the hands of his own brothers in the marpeet occasionally resorted to by them and he might have died on account of the injuries sustained in the marpeet. 6. The defence further was that the deceased might have received injuries at the hands of his own brothers in the marpeet occasionally resorted to by them and he might have died on account of the injuries sustained in the marpeet. 6. The trial court found that none of the two charges under section 109/302 and 307/34, each under the Indian Penal code, were proved with the result that appellants Ramswarath Singh and Molan Singh and co-accused Ram Babu Singh and Sheoji Singh were acquitted of these two charges. Upendra Singh, appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1976 were found guilty of the offences under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and 147 Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for two years, respectively. Except appellant Nawal Singh, three appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1976 were also convicted under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigonrous imprisonment for one year. Ram Padarath Singh having died, the other co-accused, five in number, were acquitted of the charges framed against them, thus, leaving in the field only five appellants named above, out of whom Sri Narain Singh is also no more in this world. 7. While the sole appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1976 was represented before this Court by Sri Braj Kishore Prasad. No. II, the three surviving appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1976 were represented by Sri Ram Janam Ojha. The main contentions raised before this Court were these : (i) The medical evidence being utterly inconsistent with the ocular version of the prosecution witnesses examined, a serious doubt was cast on the manner of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution; (ii) The prosecution witnesses examined in this case being highly interested in the prosecution and inimically disposed towards the appellants, their evidence infirm and incredible, as it was, was not worthy of acceptance particularly, in the context of dearth of independent witnesses and want of corroborative evidence from any independent source. (iii) The prosecution had failed to establish satisfactorily the genesis of the occurrence. (iv) There was no satisfactory and reliable material on the record to warrant the conviction of the appellants under the charges for which they have been convicted and (v) The facts and circumstances of this case probabilised the defence version. 8. (iii) The prosecution had failed to establish satisfactorily the genesis of the occurrence. (iv) There was no satisfactory and reliable material on the record to warrant the conviction of the appellants under the charges for which they have been convicted and (v) The facts and circumstances of this case probabilised the defence version. 8. Coming to the first contention, the doctor (P.W.5.) found -the following ante mortem injuries on the deceased, namely :- (i) Lacerated wound 3 ¼" x ¼" scalp deep on the left side of the head in the temporal region. On deeper dissection, a fissured fracture about 2 inch long was found in the front and prolongation of the fracture from its medial went below in the perital and temporal bones upto the middle cosa of the skull. Blood clots were found all over in the track. (ii) One contusion and swelling of the ball of the left upper eye-lid, (iii) Contusion 4" x 31/4" obliquely on the front of right arm, a little above the middle. (iv) Incised wound on the palm of the left hand extending from the left between the index finger and the middle finger to about 2" in the palm 1/4" wide and cutting the metacarble bone corresponding to the middle finger partially. Injury nos. 1 to 3 were said to have been caused by hard blunt substance and injury no. by a sharp cutting weapon. The doctor further stated that these injuries were the result of four separate blows. 9. According to the prosecution case the assailants were 11 in number, one armed with garassa and the others with lathis. The evidence adduced was that all these accused took part in assaulting the deceased. There is some inconsistency in the prosecution case about the weapon attributed to Ram Padarath. According to the first information report, he was armed with a garassa, P.W.2 had stated, both before the Police and the committing Court, that the assault on the deceased was made by falsa besides the lathis. As we are aware, grassa and falsa are two different kind of weapons having different shape. P.W.3 stated before the Committing Court about Ram Padarath being armed with a falsa. When confronted with this position, he came forward with an explanation that garassa is also called falsa which explanation is hardly acceptable. As we are aware, grassa and falsa are two different kind of weapons having different shape. P.W.3 stated before the Committing Court about Ram Padarath being armed with a falsa. When confronted with this position, he came forward with an explanation that garassa is also called falsa which explanation is hardly acceptable. The clear assertion in the first information report is that co-accused Ram Padarath gave garassa blow on the head of the deceased. It was 6 p.m. in the month of May and darkness had not obviously prevailed. It is not the prosecution case that the deceased was surrounded while he was being assaulted. In such a situation, ordinary expectancy would be that the prosecution witnesses must have seen the actual assault, particularly, when only one out of the 11 co-accused was armed with a garassa, Surprisingly however the doctor did not find any incised wound on the head of the deceased. Conscious of this infirmity in the prosecution case, the trial Court observed in paragraph 34 of the Judgment that injury no. 1, which was a lacerated wound, might have been caused by the blunt portion of the garassa. (The first information report stated about an assault by garassa giving bleeding injury. None of the prosecution witness examined in this case has come to say that Ram Padarath gave the garassa blow on the deceased with its blunt portion. In such a situation, we expect the prosecution to furnish some clarification from the mouth of the eye-witnesses. No, such clarification has been brought on the record. 10. The allegation in the first information report was that the deceased was empty handed. The assailants were many in number. The ten appellants with lathi, began assaulting him. The deceased warded off the lathi blows with his hands. In such a situation, as seriously contended by Sri Braj Kishore Prasad No.2, one would have ordinarily expected existence of some injuries caused by lathi on his hands the doctor (P. W.5) did not find any such injury instead, he found incised wound on the palm. 11. There is yet another circumstance which has to be significantly noted. The assailants, armed with lathis, were ten in number. 11. There is yet another circumstance which has to be significantly noted. The assailants, armed with lathis, were ten in number. The prosecution story, as furnished in the sessions trial, is that all of them indulged in assault on the deceased with lathi and further that lathi blows by all the ten assailants were hurled on the deceased at two places. In ordinary expectancy, one would have expected not less than 20 lathi injures on the person of the deceased, even accepting the prosecution case that the assailants having common intention to kill the deceased rest contented by giving only one lathi blow at each of the two places. The doctor (P.W.5) tells us that he found only three injuries caused by hard blunt substance on the person of the deceased. Before discreditting the prosecution case on account of inconsistency in the medical evidence and the ocular version, one has to be mindful that the inconsistency should not be trivial but glaring and somewhat making the prosecution case not probable. In the instant case, I am constrained to say that inconsistency between the medical evidence and ocular version is glaring. It casts serious doubt on the prosecution version regarding the manner of occurrence. Learned counsel for the State relied on a decision of the Rajaithan High Court Hussain Khan V. State of Rajasthan, and submitted that it was hardly fair to expect complete and perfect correspondence between the medical evidence and the eye-testimony. It would suffice to say that the facts of that case are distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. Likewise, the decision of Supreme Court Agnu and others V. State of Uttar Pradesh cannot come to the rescue of the prosecution, for the simple reason that the facts of that case are distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. There, most of the prosecution witnesses had arrived on the scene of the occurrence after the attack already started and were able to see only part of the occurrence. Here, in the instant case, the prosecution witnesses claimed to have seen the occurrence from the beginning to the end. There is another circumstance which also deserves consideration. Assailants were many. According to the prosecution, they were actuated by common intention to kill the deceased. The deceased was unarmed. The assailants did not kill him at one place. They dragged him to another place. There is another circumstance which also deserves consideration. Assailants were many. According to the prosecution, they were actuated by common intention to kill the deceased. The deceased was unarmed. The assailants did not kill him at one place. They dragged him to another place. According to the first information report, to the darwaza while according to the evidence, to the Ghewra plant, somewhere near the darwaza. The distance between the two places of assault is not long but the contention of Sri Prasad was that when the I. O. could find dragging mark, the ordinary expectancy would be the existence of some dragging marks on the person of the deceased or even on his ganji, if any, which he was wearing. On this score a grievance was raised by Sri Prasad as to the manner of occurrence. 12. In a case of this nature, the question for consideration would be whether the place of occurrence is interlinked in some respect with the manner of occurrence. The La. has not prepared the sketch map of the place of Occurrence which he ought to have done. He (P.W.7) described the place of occurrence in paragraph-5 of his evidence as east facing pucca tiled house of the informant and said that to the adjoining south of this house, at a distance of 6 to 7 feet was a miscellaneous shop of the informant and at a distance of 15 to 20 yards therefrom, there existed the house of appellant Ram Swarath Singh, Molan Singh and Ram Padarath Singh. In paragraph-6 of his deposition, he stated that he found blood mark in the shop (DUKAN ME1N TA.JA KHUN PAY A), in the sahan in front of the shop as also at the place where there existed the ghewra creepers (ghewra being a kind of vegetable). He seized the blood stained earth, under the seizure list Exhibit-5, in presence of two witnesses, namely. Yogendra Prasad Singh and Baleshwar Prasad Singh. In the seizure list he described the place near the ghewra creepers as the actual place of occurrende (Bastwik ghatnasthal) and he found blood there. As stated above, the deceased was said to have been assaulted for the second time at the darwaza of the informant. Yogendra Prasad Singh and Baleshwar Prasad Singh. In the seizure list he described the place near the ghewra creepers as the actual place of occurrende (Bastwik ghatnasthal) and he found blood there. As stated above, the deceased was said to have been assaulted for the second time at the darwaza of the informant. The I.O. did not claim to have found any blood there though he stated in Exhibit-5 that at the southeast corner of the verandah of the informant, he found some blood. The contention of Sri prasad has therefore, some substance when he submitted that there is discrepancy in the statement of the I.O. (P.W.7) and the seizure list (Exhibit-5). Ordinarily the bloodstained earth said to have contained blood is sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination to prove the existence of human blood. No such report from the Forensic Science Laboratory has been produced by the prosecution to show the existence of blood much less if human blood in the blood-stained earth, said to have been seized by the I.O. None of the two attesting witnesses has been examined nor any person is forthcoming for their non-examination. In the facts and circumstances of this case as contended by Sri Prasad, it leads to infirmity in the prosecution. Thus the first contention of Sri Prasad has merit. 13. Village Kubauna, the village of occurrence, is a big village consisting of about 200 houses inhabited by people of several castes. Theere is a Gram Panchayat also with Mukhiya, Sarpanch, village chowkidar and defadar (vide evidence of P.W.1). The assertion in the first information report is that P.W.4 and the other villagers (ANYA GAMIN WAGERAH) witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated in the prosecution evidence that there are several houses near the place of occurrence and the I.O. had examined some of them. One Rajendra Singh and Yogendra Singh were also cited as charge-sheet witnesses. In his statement before the Committing Court, P.W.3 stated that he had gone to the Mukhiya and Sarpanch to inform them about the occurrence. The assault took place at a time when the villagers were ordinarily expected to be in their houses. Not even the Mukhiya, Sarpanch, Chowkidar or the Dafadar has come forward to support the prosecution version either by giving direct or corroborative evidence. Who are the eye-witnesses ? The assault took place at a time when the villagers were ordinarily expected to be in their houses. Not even the Mukhiya, Sarpanch, Chowkidar or the Dafadar has come forward to support the prosecution version either by giving direct or corroborative evidence. Who are the eye-witnesses ? They are the three brothers of the deceased, namely, P.W.,sI, 3 and 4 and the mother PW 2 who have come to support the prosecution case. The eye-witnesses are highly interested. The defence has produced documents to show the existence of enmity between the prosecution and the appellants. This is the finding of the trial court also which was not disputed before this court. Credibility of P.W.1 stands shaken on account of the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court in respect of the co- accused including Ram Dayal Singh and Surendra Singh said to be the assailant of P.W.1. He was found going back on his earlier statements made before the police. He was also found taking recourse to his memory when an inconvenient question was put to him. Although such a high-handedness was being committed on the deceased and the persons, who went to rescue, were also ordered to be killed, according to P.W.1, no hulla was raised. He stated that no one came to the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. He also stated that nobody came even to his darwaza right from the time of occurrence till the deceased was removed to the police Station at 10 p.m. This looks quite unnatural. P.W. 2 was also found going back on her earlier statement made before the Police and the Committing Magistrate. She did not state before the Police about the deceased being dragged and assaulted at the second place. She further stated before the Committing Court that on receiving assault, the deceased fell down and died and that after he was dead, he was removed to the Police Station which is not the prosecution story from the mouth of the other witnesses. The order of acquittal recorded by the trial court in respect of appellant Nawal Singh, said to be one of her assailants, cannot but weaken her credibility. As stated by P.W.3, she did not make any statement before the Police at the time when the first information was recorded. Then remains P.W.3. The order of acquittal recorded by the trial court in respect of appellant Nawal Singh, said to be one of her assailants, cannot but weaken her credibility. As stated by P.W.3, she did not make any statement before the Police at the time when the first information was recorded. Then remains P.W.3. He was found going back upon his earlier statements made before the Police and the committing Magistrate which indicated his untrustworthiness. If one compares his evidence with that of the I.O. as recorded in paragraph-14 of the evidence of P.W. 7, it would be clear that he is a liar of the first water. Coming to P.W.4, who did not also make any statement before the Police at the time exhibit-3 was being recorded his evidence was not accepted as trustworthy by the trial court and in my opinion rightly. Thus, apart from other infirmities, the evidence of these prosecution witnesses, a, regards the manner of occurrence, does not inspire confidence and is unfit for acceptance. The trial court has not examined their evidence in correct perspective and has, therefore wrongly relied on their evidence. Thus, the second contention raised by Sri Prasad has also merit. 14. Coming to the third contention, motive is not necessary for a crime but if motive is alleged and the prosecution succeeds in estabilishing the same, it lends colour to the prosecution case. It is undisputed that the deceased, three male eye-witnesses as also the appellants and the other co-accused descended from a common ancestor. The accused, as the prosecution alleged, pre-planned to kill the deceased. In such a situation, one looks forward to find out whether there exists a motive. The motive alleged is refusal by the deceased to sell exercise book as desired by co-accused Ram Padarath Singh. Undisputedly, the deceased had returned from Tajpur much before the occurrence and ordinarily his fatigue must have been over by the time of occurrence. Why should, therefore, the deceased refuse to sell the exercise book to Ram padarath ? This is one aspect. This being the motive, one would have expected the I. O. to search the miscellaneous shop to find out whether the deceased used to sell exercise books at all. The I.O. did not do so. The shop was found closed. He (P.W. 7) did not make efforts to unlock it. This is one aspect. This being the motive, one would have expected the I. O. to search the miscellaneous shop to find out whether the deceased used to sell exercise books at all. The I.O. did not do so. The shop was found closed. He (P.W. 7) did not make efforts to unlock it. In these circumstances; there is substance in the contention of Sri Prasad that the prosecution has failed to substantiate the existence of any motive or the genesis of occurrence satisfactorily. 15. Coming to the specific charges, appellants Sri Narain Singh, Nawal Singh and Upendra Singh were charged under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to P.W. 2 voluntarily. Appellant Sri Narain Singh is dead and appellant Nawal Singh has been acquitted of this charge by the trial court and we are now concerned only with appellant Upendra Singh. Similarly, appellants Ram Swarath Singh, Molan Singh and co-accused Shivji Singh and Ram Dayal Prasad Singh were charged under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to P. W. 3 voluntarily. Co-accused Shivji Singh and Ram Dayal Prasad Singh have since been acquitted of this charge by the trial court. Co-accused Surendra Singh and Ram Dayal Singh had also been charged under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to P. W. 1 but both of them have been acquitted by the trial court. The doctor, who examined the injuries said to have been found on the person of P.W. 2 and P. W. 3 and to have granted, the injury reports Exhibits 2 and 2/2, respectively, though still in service, has not been examined by the prosecution and no satisfactory reason is forthcoming for his non-examination. The dresser (P.W. 6), who came to prove Exhibits 2 and 2/2, has not identified P. W. 2 and P.W. 3 as the person in respect of whom these injury reports were granted. The evidence of P.W.8 who came to depose about injury no. 1 found on P.W. 3 also suffers from similar infirmity. 16. While P.W. 3 does not say so about the assault by appellant Upendra Singh on P.W. 2, according to P.W. 1, P.W. 2 was assaulted by co-accused Surendra Singh and Ram Dayal Singh. P.W. 1 did not state before the police about appellant Upendra Singh assaulting P. W. 2. 1 found on P.W. 3 also suffers from similar infirmity. 16. While P.W. 3 does not say so about the assault by appellant Upendra Singh on P.W. 2, according to P.W. 1, P.W. 2 was assaulted by co-accused Surendra Singh and Ram Dayal Singh. P.W. 1 did not state before the police about appellant Upendra Singh assaulting P. W. 2. Thus, so far as the charge under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code against appellant Upendra Singh for assaulting P.W. 2 is concerned, we are left with the sole testimoney of P.W. 2 herself which cannot be regarded as reliable. Coming to the assault on P.W. 3, according to P.W. 1, all the accused, their number being undisputedly 11, assaulted P. W. 3 but in the Committing Court he had stated the names of only Sri Narain Singh, Nawal Singh and Shivji as the assistants of P.W. 3. P.W. 2 has not mentioned any specific names as the assailants of P.W. 3 and merely stated that the accused assaulted him (MUDALAH MARE). Coming to P.W. 3 himself, he stated in paragraph 45 of his deposition that those accused, who assaulted the deceased, assaulted him also. It is his further statement in paragraph 46 that after he fell down, he did not recognise as to which of the accused assaulted him. P. W. 3 appears to be totally unreliable witness. Thus, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as to the charge under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code fails to inspire confidence and it cannot safely form the basis of conviction of the appellants. 17. The prosecution having failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubts, the manner of occurrence and the genesis thereof it may not be necessary to discuss the merits or otherwise of the charge under section 323/34 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code though on the materials available on the record, it must be said that in view of the incredible nature of evidence adduced apart from other serious infirmities• in the prosecution case, it may not be safe to convict the appellants of these two charges. 18. This takes us to the last contention raised, namely, the defence version being probabilised. It is not disputed that Shiv Shankar died as a result of the assault inflicted on him. Question is who assaulted him? 18. This takes us to the last contention raised, namely, the defence version being probabilised. It is not disputed that Shiv Shankar died as a result of the assault inflicted on him. Question is who assaulted him? Although P.W. 1 attempted to deny, P.W. 3 stated in paragraph-39 of his deposition that at times there used to be marpeet among the four brothers, namely, P. W. s 1, 3, 4 and the deceased (SAMAY SAMAY PER PATTI- DARI MEIN JAISA HOTA HAI ? HUM SAB BHAION MEIN BHI GHANTA DUR- GHANTA HO JAY KARTI THI). Exhibit- D is the statement on solemn affirmation of the deceased dated 26.7.1960 in a criminal case instituted against P, W.4 and P. W. 3 wherein the deceased stated that P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 abused the deceased and his mother (P. W, 2) and assaulted him with lathi and Pasat of the spada. Exhibit-F is a certified copy of the entry in the register of criminal case which has been filed to show that P.W. 1 had filed a criminal case under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the deceased, P. W. 3 and P.W. 4 which was dismissed on 6.3.1970. Exhibit-G is a certified copy of deposition of P. W. 4 made on 15.9.1973 in a criminal case wherein P. W. 4 has alleged that P. W. 1 had thrown down his wife and P. W. 3 had assaulted him. Exhibit-A is a petition of complaint filed by one Parbati Devi wife of P.W.4 against P.W. 1 and P. W. 3 alleging an offence under section 448, 375, 511, 323 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code against them, the date of occurrence being 1.7.1973. Exhibit-C is the injury report in respect of the injuries of Parbati Devi. Exhibit-A/a is a certified copy of another complaint petition by the said Parbati Devi against P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 alleging offence on their part under sections 307, 380, 452, 323, 392, and 324 of the Indian Penal Code,. Exhibit-C being the injury report in respect of the injuries of Parbati Devi. Above all, the defence has brought on record Exhibit B, a petition filed by P.W. 4 on 5.7.1973 in the criminal case brought by Parbati Devi. Exhibit-C being the injury report in respect of the injuries of Parbati Devi. Above all, the defence has brought on record Exhibit B, a petition filed by P.W. 4 on 5.7.1973 in the criminal case brought by Parbati Devi. He stated, inter alia, in this petition that as the accused persons of the instant case had been falsely inplicated in this case, he was not going to support the prosecution. P. W, 4 has been examined as a prosecution witness and provisions of section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act stands complied. The statement made in Exhibit-B is, therefore, admissible in evidence and it cuts at the very root of the prosecution case. If all these are considered in the light of the circumstances and probabilities of the case as also the glaring infirmities, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the defence case stands probabilised, cannot be said to be without merit. 19. In view of what has been said and discussed above, there can be no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the charges framed against any of the appellants before this Court cannot be said to have been brought home to their beyond reasonable doubts and it is a fit case in which the benefit of doubt should go to them. 20. The result is that the two appeals are allowed, the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them their conviction imposed by the trial court is set aside and they are ordered to be discharged from their bail bonds. I agree Appeals allowed.