JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29-5-78 of the Addl. Sessions Judge (1), Alwar passed in Sessions Case No. 49/77, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the appellants u/s 302/34, IPC and sentenced both the appellants to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default whereof to undergo further 2 months R. I. Accused-appellant Sohanpal was further convicted u/s 325, IPC and sentenced to one year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default whereof to further undergo 2 months R. I. Accused-appellant Chiranji was also convicted u/s 323, IPC and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment. Sentences of both the accused-appellants were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Bhagwandas, son of the deceased, (PW 1), lodged a report at P. S. Laxmangarh on 1-9-77 at 7 P. M. In that report it was alleged that on 1-9-77 at about 8-9 A- M. his father, uncle and brother Shivdayal were sitting in the field (Baithak) a place where cattle usually sit at night). At that time accused Sohanpal, Asha, Neta Pooran, Smt. Gyarsi, Smt. Chameli, Smt. Dhanni (all acquitted by the trial court except Sohanpal) and Chiranji and Harsahai (acquitted), all armed with Lathis and Pharsis came at the place where the deceased and his brother and son were sitting. Accused-appellant Chiranji asked the deceased (father of the informant) to redeem his land said to be under mortgage. On this the deceased demanded Rs. 2,000/- being the mortgage money On hearing this, accused-appellant Chiranji exhorted. On this exhortation all the accused inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased. It was stated in the report that the father, uncle and brother of the informant were admitted in Alwar hospital. It was also stated in the report that the facts relating to the occurrence were narrated to the informant by his uncle. On this report a case u/ss. 307. 147 and, 148, IPC etc. was registered by the in-charge Police Station and the investigation started. During the course of investigation injured Lalluram succumbed to his injuries The case was then converted under Section 302, IPC. After completing the investigation, a challan was submitted against all the nine accused persons named in the F.I.R. in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh u/s 302 and 307. During the course of investigation injured Lalluram succumbed to his injuries The case was then converted under Section 302, IPC. After completing the investigation, a challan was submitted against all the nine accused persons named in the F.I.R. in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh u/s 302 and 307. IPC etc., who committed all the nine accused for trial The learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellant Chiranji u/s 147. 302 IPC and in the alternative u/s 302/149, 325/149 and 323, IPC Accused-appellant Sohanpal was also charged for the same offences as Chiranji appellant The other accused persons were also charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, but because they have been acquitted by the trial Court, it will not be of any use to mention the charges framed against them. Both the appellants denied the charges framed against them and claimed trial. 3. In all 22 witnesses were examined iD the trial Court by the prosecution. Statements of the accused u/s 313, Cr P. C. were recorded Both the appellants denied the allegations levelled against them by the prosecution witnesses It was further stated by the appellants that they will submit a written statement which was submitted before the trial Court. They did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after hearing arguments passed the judgment under appeal. 4. As per the investigation. PW 2 Gungaram, PW 3 Sheodayal, PW 6 Mst. Panchi. PW 7 Mst. Ramdei. PW 8 Mst. Rodi, PW 9 Mst. Bhawani PW 12 Mormal and PW 13 Jumma were the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. PW 3 Ramkumar Sharma is the Revenue Patwari of the village, PW 4 Harising prepared the site plan. PW 10 Sriya & PW 11 Gangasahai are the witnesses who brought the injured to Alwar hospital,& PW14 Ramla is the witness of recovery of a lathi. PW15 Dr. Rajendra Kumar examined the injuries of the injured Shivdayal and prescribed medicine for the deceased. This witness also proved the injury reports of three accused persons. PW 16 Vinodsingh is the witness who prepared the Panchayatnama PW 17 Ratanlal is the Superdar of the she-buffalo recovered during the course of investigation. PW 18 Ramchand is the witness who deposed about the purchase of she-buffalo from accused Harsahai. PW 19 is the Dr. This witness also proved the injury reports of three accused persons. PW 16 Vinodsingh is the witness who prepared the Panchayatnama PW 17 Ratanlal is the Superdar of the she-buffalo recovered during the course of investigation. PW 18 Ramchand is the witness who deposed about the purchase of she-buffalo from accused Harsahai. PW 19 is the Dr. P.S. Agarwal who examined the injuries on the person of the deceased before his death. PW 20 Gopal Singh is the Investigating Officer. PW 21 is Dr. S.K. Banerji who had examined the injuries on the person of Shivdayal and also got the x-ray of Gungaram (PW 2) done. PW 22 Dr. B.D. Khandelwal is the witness who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Lalluram. As stated earlier that in the F.I R. it has been alleged that the deceased asked for the mortgage money from the accused appellant Chiranji. but during the course of trial this fact has been omitted and it has been deposed by PW 2 Gungaram that prior to the occurrence the matter of redemption was settled between the deceased and the appellant Chiranji and Harsahai, and by way of that settlement it was decided between them that appellant Chiranji and Harsahai will give to the deceased Lalluram one she buffalo costing Rs. l800/- and Rs. 200/- in cash In compliance with this settlement, appellant Chiranji had given the she-buffalo to the deceased and this she-buffalo was snatched by the accused party on the day of occurrence and because of this reason the incident occurred. 5. In the case before us all the eye witnesses except PW 2 Gungaram turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution story, although these eye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased and the injured Gungaram (PW 2). PW 5 Shivdayal is the son of the deceased, and he has stated to have sustained injuries in the occurrence, and a grievous injury was found on his person but he too did not support the prosecution version. He also did not cast any responsibility on any of the accused persons regarding his injuries. PW 6 Mst. Panchi is the widow of the deceased and she also turned hostile PW 7 Mst. Ramdei is the wife of PW 2 Gungaram, but she also turned hostile. PW 8 Mst, Laddi is the mother of the deceased and PW 9 Mst. PW 6 Mst. Panchi is the widow of the deceased and she also turned hostile PW 7 Mst. Ramdei is the wife of PW 2 Gungaram, but she also turned hostile. PW 8 Mst, Laddi is the mother of the deceased and PW 9 Mst. Bhagwani is the daughter of the deceased, but both of them turned hostile. PW 12 Mormal and PW 13 Jumma were also examined by the prosecution and they were the only witnesses who were not related to the complainant party, and they have been claimed as independent witnesses of the occurrence, but they too turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story at all. 6. In view of the above discussion, the only witness for the prosecution who was relied upon by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is PW 2 Gungaram. There is no dispute that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him during the course of occurrence. In this occurrence PW 2 Gungaram and PW 5 Shivdayal also sustained injuries, but the only question before us is as to who is responsible for the death of Lalluram and for the injuries sustained by Gungaram and Shivdayal Shivdayal at the trial admitted that he sustained injuries but he deposed that he did not know as to who inflicted the injuries on his person. Therefore this much is clear that the appellants cannot be held guilty for causing injuries to Shivdayal, and in this way the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was justified in acquitting all the accused said to be responsible for the injuries sustained by Shivdayal. In the light of these circumstances, the testimony of PW 2 Gungaram is to be examined cautiously and critically. Because the present case is based on the testimony of a single witness, the statement of Gungaram (PW 2) is to be appreciated with full care and caution, as we have stated earlier, there is a discrepancy between the facts stated in the F.I R. and the statement of Gungaram (PW 2). PW 1 Bhagwandas is the son of the deceased who lodged the report at the police station. In that report it has been alleged that the land of the accused was mortgaged with Lalluram deceased for Rs. 2,000/-. The mortgage deed also appears on the record. PW 1 Bhagwandas is the son of the deceased who lodged the report at the police station. In that report it has been alleged that the land of the accused was mortgaged with Lalluram deceased for Rs. 2,000/-. The mortgage deed also appears on the record. The reason given in the F I.R. for the occurrence is that the accused Harsahai and appellant Chiranji asked Lalluram to vacate the land whereupon the deceased Lalluram demanded mortgage money and on this demand the accused party started beating the complainant party. This fact has not at all been corroborated by the prosecution witnesses at the trial, but has been controverted by the statement of PW 2 Gungaram who deposed that prior to the occurrence the interested persons of both the sides reached to a settlement and in compliance with that settlement a she-buffalo costing Rs. 1800/- was handed over to the deceased Lalluram. If this statement of PW 2 Gungaram is taken to be correct, then there appears to be no reason of any fight between the persons concerned, and the facts as stated by Gungaram (PW 2) at the stage of trial do not find place in the F.I.R. lodged by the son of the deceased. We are unable to accept the proposition that the informant might have given a wrong version in the F.I.R., rather it can be inferred that the version given in the F.I.R. was the same as was narrated to the informant by Gungaram (PW 2) Because of this contradiction in the F.I.R. and the version given by Gungaram during the trial, the testimony of Gungaram becomes doubtful. Gungaram has assigned specific overt act to the accused appellants at the trial, which did not find place in the F.I.R. 7. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge placed reliance on the testimony of Gungaram (PW2) on the ground that because the witness sustained injuries his presence on the scene of occurrence was established, but in the instant case the main point for consideration before the trial Court as well as before this Court is, as to whether the testimony of this witness is worth to be believed. The learned trial Court was of the opinion that because the other eye witnesses, though turned hostile, admitted the presence of at least the accused-appellants and Harsahai (now acquitted), and due to this admission of hostile witnesses the testimony of Gungaram (PW 2) was corroborated. We have no hesitation in holding that this approach of the learned trial Court cannot be termed as correct and proper in a criminal case of this type because of the reason that the statement of PW 2 Gungaram is discrepant to the initial stand taken by the prosecution In the F I.R it has been stated that at the time of occurrence PW2 Gungaram was sitting with the deceased Lalluram alongwith Shambhu on the Baithak (place of occurrence) This fact in the F.I.R. has been mentioned on the basis of information given by Gungaram (PW2) to Bhagwandas (PW1), who has stated before the trial Court that whatever facts are given in the F I.R are based on the information given to him by PW2 Gungaram. But PW2 Gungaram in his statement at the trial deposed at that the time of occurrence she was at his residence and on hearing the cries he went on the spot. We are unable to accept the proposition of the trial court to the effect that presence of at least three accused is corroborated by the other eye-witnesses We are of the opinion that instead of supporting the version of PW2 Gungaram the other eye witnesses have given a contradictory version. PW2 Gungaram in his statement has not only shown the presence of nine accused,but has also narrated the overt act of all the nine persons. This version of PW2 Gungaram has been contradicted by other witnesses, and in the presence of the contradiction the testimony of PW2 Gungaram cannot be held as sufficient so as to convict the present appellants. The other reason which makes the testimony of PW2 Gungaram as doubtful is that as per the F.I R. the incident took place only when the deceased put a demand before the accused to pay the mortgage money. This fact in the FIR. The other reason which makes the testimony of PW2 Gungaram as doubtful is that as per the F.I R. the incident took place only when the deceased put a demand before the accused to pay the mortgage money. This fact in the FIR. is also based on the information given to PW1 Bhagwan Dass by Gungaram (PW2), but Gungaram in his statement at the trial has not given any cause as to why the incident took place, The witness deposed that the accused straight-away assaulted his brother Lalluram who was sitting alone at the Baithak. He has nowhere stated that the accused initially asked the deceased to hand over possession of their mortgaged land and the deceased asked for the mortgage money as in the case in the FIR, This is a material contradiction which makes the version of Gungaram (PW2) as doubtful. The learned trial Court did hold that the accused also sustained injuries on their person and it has given its own explanation about these injuries. It was held by the learned trial Court that the accused sustained injuries at the time when Gungaram (PW2) and other persons of the complainant party reached on the spot after hearing the alarm and there had started a free fight in between the complainant and the accused party. This was a hypothetical conclusion of the trial Court when no such or any other explanation was given by the prosecution witnesses PW2 Gungaram the star witness of the prosecution has not only denied the existence of the injuries on the person of the accused, a fact which has been admitted by Dr. R.K. Malik (PW15), but entirely changed the sequence of the events and tried to completely run away from the admission of any allegation that either he or his party-men had any Lathis or that they had caused injuries on the person of the accused. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the prosecution have suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and have thus not presented the true version that the witnesses who have denied the presence of injuries on the person of the accused are telling lie on a most material point Therefore, their evidence is not reliable. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much importance when there is the evidence consisting of interested witnesses. The evidence of the prosecution has been disbelieved by the trial court to a large extent and the evidence relied upon by the trial court is not clinching or of sterling worth, as we have discussed above. 9. The result is that this appeal deserves to be accepted and is hereby accepted. The conviction and sentence of the appellants Chiranjilal and Sohanpal u/s 302/34, I.P.C. and u/ss. 325 and 323, IPC are set aside. The accused-appellants are on bail and they need not surrender. The bail bonds shall stand discharged.Appeal Allowed. *******