JUDGMENT I.P. Singh, J. - This criminal appeal has been filed by three appellants, namely, Ram Nath, Ramker and Pradish against the judgment and order of Shri Ruri Mal, Sessions Judge, Ghazipur in Sessions Trial No. 101 of 1978, State v. Ram Nath and two others, dated September 14, 1978, convicting and sentencing Ram Nath and Ramker appellants under Section 26 of the Cattle Trespass Act to two month S.I. and under Section 323, I.P.C. to six months' R.I. each; and convicting and sentencing Pradish appellant under Section 307, I.P.C. to two years R.I. and further convicting and sentencing Ram Nath appellant under Section 307/109, I.P.C. to two years' R.I. All the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is that Ram Pati, complainant (P.W. 1) and Deoraj (P.W. 2) are the residents of Village Parsupur, P.S. Qasmabad, District Ghazipur and are Ahir by caste. The three appellants are the residents of Village Manaria within the said police station. There is another Village Sipah situate at some distance away from Villages Manaria and Parsupur. Ram Pati complainant had sown paddy crop in his plot situate in village Sipah. 3. On July 24, 1977 at about 10 A.M. all the three appellants were unlawfully grazing their she-buffaloes in the paddy crop plot of Ram Pati (P. W. 1). At that time Ram Pati reached there and objected to the grazing of the she-buffaloes in his plot. He even started driving away those cattle from his plot. At this the three appellants who were armed with either Lathi or Danda, started beating Ram Pati. Deoraj (P.W. 2) who was present at his field in that locality, seeing the assault by the three appellants on Ram Pati complainant, rushed to the spot and tried to save Ram Pati. Vikram Bhar and Brij Yadav are also said to have arrived there. Pradish appellant brought a spear from his nearby-house at the instigation of Ram Nath appellant, thrust that spear in the right side of the abdomen of Deoraj (P.W. 2) who fell down unconscious. The incident attracted many others at which the appellants took to their heels. 4. Ram Pati (P.W. 1) accompanied by Deoraj (P.W. 2) went to P.S. Qasmabad, 5 miles away, where Ram Pati complainant handed in a written report of the incident which formed the basis of the F.I.R. which was registered at 1.15 P.M. on that day. The incident attracted many others at which the appellants took to their heels. 4. Ram Pati (P.W. 1) accompanied by Deoraj (P.W. 2) went to P.S. Qasmabad, 5 miles away, where Ram Pati complainant handed in a written report of the incident which formed the basis of the F.I.R. which was registered at 1.15 P.M. on that day. 5. The two injured were referred to the dispensarv Qasmabad where Dr. Gopal Krishna Singh, Medical officer Incharge of the dispensary, examined Deoraj (P.W. 2) at 1.30 P.M. and Ram Pati complainant (P.W. 1) at 1.45 P.M. that very day. Deoraj had sustained an incised wound 4 x 1' tapering and, right side chest 7 cm. below. The probing was not done. The injuries were bleeding and fresh and were said to be dangerous, caused by sharp weapon. 6. Ram Pati (P.W .1) had suffered one lacerated wound skin deep on occipital region 15 cm. above 7th cervical vertebrate. It is bleeding. He had also suffered a contusion 2 cm. x 2 cm. on outer aspect left leg 2 cm. above the lateral mallobus. Both the injuries were simple, caused by blunt weapon and were fresh. 7. The appellants had pleaded not guilty. Ram Nath appellant pleaded that a quarrel had taken place between the cowherd men of Village Parsupur and the cowherd men of Village Manaria. He himself was not present there at that time. This statement of Ram Nath, under Section 313, Cr.P.C. is said to advance the plea of alibi. Here I may also refer to the statement of Sati Ram (D.W. 1), who deposed that Ram Nath appellant had a Tal of wood close to his own Tal of wood in the Bazar of Yusufpur for the last 2, 3 years and that Ram Nath lived at Yusufpur. But this statement of Sati Ram in no way conclusively excludes the presence of Ram Nath on the spot at the alleged time of occurrence in village Sipah. Sati Ram (D.W. 1) admitted in his cross-examination that Ram Nath appellant is the head of the family and his wife and children reside in village Manaria. But this statement of Sati Ram in no way conclusively excludes the presence of Ram Nath on the spot at the alleged time of occurrence in village Sipah. Sati Ram (D.W. 1) admitted in his cross-examination that Ram Nath appellant is the head of the family and his wife and children reside in village Manaria. The learned Sessions Judge, observed that even if Ram Nath appellant be said to be running his Tal of wood at Yusufpur even that his visits to his house in village Manaria of and on to look after his family could not he excluded and it was rather probable. In the circumstances the above statement of Ram Nath appellant and the evidence of Sati Ram (D . W. 1) was not sufficient to prove the so called plea of alibi. 8. All the three appellants in their state ments under Section 313, Cr.P.C. have denied their participation in the crime and expressed their ignorance about the injuries sustained by both Ram Pati (P.W. 1) and Deoraj, (P . W. 2). They alleged their implication in the present case on account of enmity. 9. Mahadeo, (D.W. 3), is the resident of village Manaria and deposed that agricultural plots of Deoraj and Pradesh appellant are adjoining in village Sipah. A quarrel had taken place between the two over the demolition of the intervening Mendh by Deoraj. (P.W. 2), and at that time Deoraj (P. W. 2) had threatened Pradish appellant that he would see him. Except this statement there is nothing about said threat of Deoraj (P.W. 2) to Pradish. For this reason the said enmity is not convincing. 10. Sheo Shanker Misra, (D.W. 2). resident of village Sipah, has said that he knew Ram Pati (P.W. 1), and Deoraj (P.W. 2). He also knew the three appellants who were the residems of village Manaria. He further stated that some boys were grazing their cattle and that she-buffaloes had strayed into the field of Ram Pati. Ram Pati had driven out those she-buffaloes. At this a dispute arose between Ram Pati (P.W. 1 ) and those boys who were grazing the cattle. This had brought Deoraj and many others to the spot. They had separated Ram Pati (P.W. 1) and those boys and the dispute was calmed down. Ram Pati had driven out those she-buffaloes. At this a dispute arose between Ram Pati (P.W. 1 ) and those boys who were grazing the cattle. This had brought Deoraj and many others to the spot. They had separated Ram Pati (P.W. 1) and those boys and the dispute was calmed down. He also stated that in that dispute Deoraj had received injury in his stomach which was caused by one of those boys. He further stated that he had not seen any visible injury on the person of Ram Pati (P.W. 1), and that at the time of that dispute he had not seen any of the three appellants there. This would show that this witness in a way admits some occurrence over the grazing of she-buffaloes in the field of Ram Pati (P.W. 1) in which Deoraj is said to have sustained injury in his stomach. Beyond that no more could be deduced from the evidence of (D . W. 2). R therefore, leaves the prosecution to prove their case on the strength of their own evidence. 11. The earliest version of the incident has found place in the F.I.R. lodged by Ram Pati (P. W. 1) according to which all the three appellants were grazing she-buffaloes in the paddy crop field of Ram Pati. On his objection and attempt to drive away the she-buffaloes out of his field the three appellants are said to have attacked him with Lathi and Danda. When Deoraj (P.W. 2) tried to intervene then Pradish appellant, whose house was quite near to that place brought a Ballam from his house and at the instigation of Ram Nath appellant "Mar sale ko, isse achchha mouka nahi ayega" Pradish appellant, with the intention of killing him, gave a Ballam blow in the right side of his chest (Pajri). 12. However, in the course of evidence Ram Pati (P.W. 1) excluded Pradish appellant from the original act of grazing the she-buffaloes in his paddy crop field. He simply stated that at the alleged time when he reached at his field he saw Ram Nath and Ramker appellants grazing she-buffaloes in his field. When he tried to drive away the cattle from his field then Ram Nath and Ramker appellants started beating him with Lathis. He even added that on his alarm many others including Deoraj (P.W. 2) arrived there to save him. When he tried to drive away the cattle from his field then Ram Nath and Ramker appellants started beating him with Lathis. He even added that on his alarm many others including Deoraj (P.W. 2) arrived there to save him. Deoraj (P.W. 2), on arrival, abused him (Ram Pati) and asked him as to why he was quarrelling. Meanwhile Pradish appellant came running with a Ballam from his house and gave its blow to Deoraj which stick him in the right side under the arm-pit. Deoraj fell down unconscious and the appellants ran away. In the end he added that Pradish appellant had given Ballam blow to Deorai (P. W. 2) at the instigation of Ram Nah appellant who had said, "MAR SALE, KO. ISSE. ACHCHHA MOUKA NAHI AYEGA." In his cross-examination he confirmed that in the beginning only those two appellants gave him 2-4 Lathi blows and when his head was hurt he fell down. He however, got up and ran away. On the way he met Deoraj (P.W. 2) coming in his direction. He then returned to the spot along with Deoraj. On reaching there Deoraj protested to Ram Nath and Ramker appellants as to why they had damaged the crop of Ram Pati (P.W 1). He stated that till then Pradish appeal and had not arrived at the spot. The above years is quite different from the narration of events mentioned in the F.I.R. The attention of the witness (Rampati) was drawn to the contents of the F.I.R. as was as to his statement recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, Cr.P.C. in which he had stated the presence of all the three appellants on the spot from the very beginning and their grazing of she buffaloes in the field of Ram Pati and on his objection and attempt to drive away the cattle all the three appellants are said to have started beating him with Lathis. Ram Pati, (P.W. 1), stated that he did mention these facts in the F.I.R. as well as before the I.O. and that the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. and before I.O. were correct. 13. Deo Raj, (P.W. 2), has deposed in line with the facts deposed by Ram Pati (P.W. 1). Ram Pati, (P.W. 1), stated that he did mention these facts in the F.I.R. as well as before the I.O. and that the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. and before I.O. were correct. 13. Deo Raj, (P.W. 2), has deposed in line with the facts deposed by Ram Pati (P.W. 1). According to him also only two appellants, Ram Nath and Ramker, had grazed the she-buffaloes in the field of Ram Pati and on his objection was given beating with lathis. He claimed to have reached the spot and pleaded with the said two appellants but in the meantime Pradish appellant arrived there with a Ballam and thrust it on the right side of his body under the arm-pit. In the end he added that Pradish had given Bhala blow at the instance of Ram Nath appellant. In his cross-examination he was confronted with the statement recorded by the 1.0. under Section 161, Cr.P.C. in which he had stated that Ram Pati (P.W. 1) was trying to drive out the cattle from his field. Pradish, Ram Nath and Ramker appellants started beating Ram Pati complainant with Dandas. He could not say how the statement was recorded by the I.O. He was also confronted with his other statement before the I.O. in which he had stated that in the meantime Pradish went to his house and brought a Ballam. He could also not say how the statement was recorded by the I.O. 14. It is to be remembered that the statements of both Ram Pati and Deoraj recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, Cr.P.C. are in accordance with the case disclosed in the F.I.R. but this case, has been given up by them during the course of evidence and the channel statements have already been mentioned above. 15. It is true that the substantive evidence is that which is deposed by the witnesses before the court and the court has to see whether the statements are such which could inspire confidence or not. When the case is developed during the evidence in the court and it is found at variance from that taken in the F.I.R. then a strong doubt prevails about the veracity of the version depicted in the court. When the case is developed during the evidence in the court and it is found at variance from that taken in the F.I.R. then a strong doubt prevails about the veracity of the version depicted in the court. It might as well be that the medical evidence does support the prosecution case that both Ram Pati (P.W. 1) and Deoraj (P.W. 2) had sustained injuries as alleged by the prosecution but that fact by itself would not conclusively prove that the incident had taken place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. When the participation of all the three appellants in the initial stage of the occurrence, as alleged in the F. I. R. was given up and a different version was set up during the evidence that by itself is a factor which compels the court to look at the prosecution case with suspicion. The reason for this somersault taken by the (P.Ws.) during the course of evidence in the court not far to seek. The F.I.R. as it stood, had attributed attack with Lathis by all the three appellants. In that case if each appellant was to score an effective hit with his lathi on Ram Pati complainant then atleast three injuries would have appeared on his person but the medical report was not supporting the F.I.R. and that seems to be the reason that Pradish appellant was excluded from first part of the occurrence. Again the F.I.R. version which places only lathis in the hands of all the three appellants would not have effected incised wound suffered by Deoraj (P.W. 2). That necessitated the prosecution version to introduce Ballam in the occurrence. The prosecution. through the statements of Ram Pati (P.W. 1) and Deoraj (P.W. 2). introduced the fact that Pradish appellant came running from his house holding a Bhala and soon after the arrival on the spot gave a Bhala blow to Deoraj (P.W. 2). The abetment role is assigned by the prosecution to Ram Nath. Had he really abetted then this abetment should have taken place before Pradish appellant had wielded his Bhala at Deoraj but the sequence in which both Ram Pati and Deoraj bring in the instigation part of the occurrence also indicates, their half-heartedness in the matter. The abetment role is assigned by the prosecution to Ram Nath. Had he really abetted then this abetment should have taken place before Pradish appellant had wielded his Bhala at Deoraj but the sequence in which both Ram Pati and Deoraj bring in the instigation part of the occurrence also indicates, their half-heartedness in the matter. It is only when the attack with Bhala is described by the said witnesses that they have in the end added that this Bhala blow was given at the instigation of Ram Nath appellant. To my mind, the case as put forward by the prosecution in the F.I.R. and as brought on record before the court through the statements of Ram Pati and Deoraj P.Ws. does not inspire full confidence. One cannot get rid of a lurking feeling at the back of the mind that, there's something fishy and that the prosecution has not come forward with clean hands. 16. There is another aspect which must be referred to before taking leave of this case. The incident had taken place at about 10 A. M. The F.I.R. was lodged at 1.15 P.M. at the police station which is 5 miles away from the place of occurrence. Deoraj who had suffered a serious Ballam blow was also taken to, the police station. That much time could reasonably have been taken to lodge that report. Apparently, therefore, the report seems to be quite prompt. But, that report appears to have been scribed by Ram Bali resident of Parsupur. It could also be that Ram Pati might have got scribed that report by Ram Bali in the village itself and then taken the said written report to the police: station. But that is not so because Ram Pati (P.W. 1), has admitted that he readied the police station at 1 P.M. He first mentioned all the facts of the occurrence to Diwanji. Then Diwanji gave a paper to Ram Bali to write the report on it. The said report was written in the office of Diwanji and that too at the dictation of Diwanji. This clearly shows that the said report was not an innocent version given out by Ram Pati (P.W. 1) to Ram Bali directly but seems to be added by Diwanji. The said report. It cannot be free from outer consultations. 17. The said report was written in the office of Diwanji and that too at the dictation of Diwanji. This clearly shows that the said report was not an innocent version given out by Ram Pati (P.W. 1) to Ram Bali directly but seems to be added by Diwanji. The said report. It cannot be free from outer consultations. 17. As a result of the above discussion, it cannot be said with all certainty that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. A strong doubt persists abort the manner in which the occurrence took place and the benefit of that doubt must go to the appellants. 18. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The convictions and sentences awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, to each of the three appellants are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Radish appellant is in jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in any other case. Appellants Ram Nath and Ramker are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.