JUDGMENT O.P. Mehrotra, J. - Appellants - Siddhi, Bidesi, Jai Karan, Ram Karan and Hausila, who admittedly belong to the same family have filed this appeal against an order of conviction dated 19.4.82 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad. Accused Jai Karan who is said to have assaulted with a Farsa has been convicted under Sections 148 and 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to 18 months R.I. and two years' R.I. respectively for the said offences. The remaining four appellants who are said to have assaulted with lathis have been convicted under Sections 147 and 307/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year and seven years respectively for the said offences. All the sentences were made to run concurrently. The prosecution in this case started on the F.I.R. lodged by Shiv Kumar (P.W.1) who is own brother of Ram Chandra (P.W. 2) who is victim of this assault. It is alleged that on 3.4.81, at about 6.15 p.m. while injured Ram Chandra, who had gone to take food in a Brahmbhoj in village Satna was returning from there and had reached near the grove to the north of the village, the 5 accused persons who were already sitting in ambush in the grove armed with Lathis and Farsa came out and started assaulting Ram Chandra. On the alarm raised by him informant Shiv Kumar, Siyaram, Ram Dular, Bhikhu and others came running from the village and saw the accused persons assaulting Ram Chandra. On seeing the witnesses, the accused ran away towards the north. It was also alleged that the accused persons had enmity with the injured on account of which they assaulted him. After this occurrence, the witnesses brought the injured to the village and thereafter took him to police station Bikapur which is at a distance of five miles from the spot. On the way Shiv Kumar got the report Ex. Ka-1 scribed by Radhey Shyam. He then took the injured to the police station and lodged the first information report at 10.25 p.m. A case under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 I.P.C. was registered and was investigated, by S.I. Ram Chandra Verma (P.W. 4). During investigation he recovered blood from the spot. The injuries of Ram Chandra were examined by Dr. Ka-1 scribed by Radhey Shyam. He then took the injured to the police station and lodged the first information report at 10.25 p.m. A case under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 I.P.C. was registered and was investigated, by S.I. Ram Chandra Verma (P.W. 4). During investigation he recovered blood from the spot. The injuries of Ram Chandra were examined by Dr. U.A. Siddiqui (P.W. 3) on the same night at 11 p.m. The injured had received 13 injuries in all, including 8 lacerated wounds, 3 incised wounds, 1 branded contusion and one contusion. Injuries nos. 9, 10 and 11 were caused by some sharp weapon while the remaining injuries were caused by some blunt object. Head injuries Nos. 1 to 6 were kept under observation. On X-ray, no fracture was detected. All the accused pleaded not guilty. Their case was that Ram Chandra was assaulted by some unknown persons in the darkness of the night in the jungle and they had been falsely implicated on account of enmity. In support of its case, the prosecution examined informant Shiv Kumar (P.W. 1) and injured Ram Chandra (P.W. 2). No other eye witness was examined. The learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution witness and convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above; hence this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. I have also carefully gone through the entire material on the record. There is no dispute that there was existing enmity between the parties on account of the snatching of cycle by informant's sister's son Prem Narain from accused Siddhi. According to P.W. 1 Shiv Kumar, his nephew Prem Narain had purchased the said cycle from accused Ram Karan. After 4 or 6 days of the said purchase, Ram Karan took away the said cycle from the house of Prem Narain. No report etc. in that connection was lodged by Prem Narain but after 2 or 4 days Prem Narain snatched the said cycle from accused Siddhi, who is father of accused Ram Karan and Jai Karan. There appears to be dispute between the parties as to whether Prem Narain had actually purchased the said cycle from accused Ram Karan. No receipt etc. in respect of the purchase of the said cycle has been produced. There appears to be dispute between the parties as to whether Prem Narain had actually purchased the said cycle from accused Ram Karan. No receipt etc. in respect of the purchase of the said cycle has been produced. It is, however, an admitted fact that accused Siddhi had lodged a complaint against Prem Narain informant Shiv Kumar and injured Ram Chandra and others in respect of snatching of cycle and assaulting him and that the said case is still pending. This shows that the relations between the parties were strained. Enmity is, however a double-edged weapon which cuts both ways. If the accused persons could take into their head to assault Ram Chandra on account of the said enmity, it is also correct that if Ram Chandra was assaulted by some unknown persons while returning home in the darkness of the night he could naturally implicate the accused persons on account of the said enmity. The main question for decision in this case was as to when and in what manner this occurrence took place. In this connection it would be relevant to examine as to whether the occurrence took place at 6.15 p.m. while there was sufficient light in which the assailants could be identified or whether it was probable that the occurrence might have taken place after sun-set so that the assailants could not be identified due to darkness. We have also to see whether the evidence examined by the prosecution was reliable and whether it was possible to place implicit reliance on that evidence and to hold that the occurrence had taken place at the time and in the manner alleged by the prosecution. It is noteworthy that the prosecution has merely examined the informant and the injured and has not examined any other eye witness, although several witnesses are said to have arrived at the spot at the time of the occurrence. According to the F.I.R., besides informant Shiv Kumar, Siyaram, Ram Dular and Bhikhu had also arrived on the spot; but for reasons best known to the prosecution, none of them has been examined. According to the F.I.R., besides informant Shiv Kumar, Siyaram, Ram Dular and Bhikhu had also arrived on the spot; but for reasons best known to the prosecution, none of them has been examined. It is correct that in a case of this nature, it is very often possible to base a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim of the assault, provided it is established that he had sufficient opportunity to see the assailants and his evidence is such on which implicit reliance could be placed. In the present case, there are certain material 'infirmities which make the prosecution case doubtful and further go to show that it was also probable that the occurrence might have taken place after sun set at about 7.30 p.m. or 8.00 p.m. so that the injured had no opportunity to identify the assailants. It is noteworthy that F.I.R. was lodged after more than four hours of this occurrence. When the informant was questioned in this respect, he stated that soon after the occurrence he took the injured to the village, remained there for two hours and then proceeded towards police station. There was no reason why he should have remained at the house for about two hours especially when his brother was lying injured. It means that the informant left the village after 8.15 p.m. Learned counsel for the appellants rightly contended that as a matter of fact the occurrence might have taken place at about 8 p.m. and that is why the informant left for the police station at or after 8.15 p.m. If this occurrence had taken place at 6.15 p.m. there was no reason why the informant would have unnecessarily remained at the house for two hours. This was an important factor which goes to show that the occurrence took place in the darkness of the night cannot be entirely ruled out. P.W. 2 Ram Chandra, who is victim of this assault, has clearly stated that Surendra and Munna has also gone to take Brahm Bhoj in village Satna along with him and they were also returning with him when this occurrence took place. Surendra and Munna were thus the best witness of this occurrence. They are, however, conspicuous by their absence in the F.I.R. Ram Chandra has stated that they were young boys and on seeing the accused persons, they ran away. Surendra and Munna were thus the best witness of this occurrence. They are, however, conspicuous by their absence in the F.I.R. Ram Chandra has stated that they were young boys and on seeing the accused persons, they ran away. May that be so, yet they were the best persons who could have seen and identified the assailants even if they did not remain there and started running away as soon as they saw the assail- ants coming armed with Mathis and Farsa. It is surprising that after hearing the alarm raised by the victim several persons from the village arrived there in time to witness the Marpit. but witnesses Surendra and Munna, who were accompanying Ram Chandra did not see this occurrence. The fact that these witnesses were not named in the F.I.R. nor they were produced before the trial court goes a long way to show that the prosecution had not come with clean hands and in all probability the occurrence did not take place at the time and in the manner alleged by the prosecution. The presence of P.W. 1 Shiv Kumar at the spot is also not free from doubt. It is noteworthy that he did not receive any injury in this occurrence although he was own brother of Ram Chandra and the accused bore grudge against him as well. His statement shows that he had gone to the hamlet of Kewats when he heard alarm raised by Ram Chandra. He further admitted that there were other hamlets in between the place of occurrence and hamlet of Kewets and that he had no enmity with persons living in those hamlets. In the ordinary course it was expected that on hearing the alarm raised by the injured, the persons residing in the hamlets which were nearest to the place of occurrence would have rushed to the spot. It is surprising that no one residing in those hamlets has been cited as a witness in the F.I.R. Instead persons residing at longer distance have been cited and they too have not been produced to stand the test of cross-examination. It is also noteworthy that besides the informant and the injured, who are own brothers, no other independent witness of the locality is coming forward to support the prosecution case. It is also noteworthy that besides the informant and the injured, who are own brothers, no other independent witness of the locality is coming forward to support the prosecution case. In the context of the circumstances mentioned above, the testimony of the informant and the injured, without corroboration by independent witness, does not inspire confidence. As regards the time of occurrence, it may also be mentioned that the medical evidence does not rile out the possibility that this occurrence could have taken place at about 8 or 9 p.m. As a matter of fact Dr. Siddiqui (P.W. 3) stated in his cross-examination that the injuries received by Ram Chandra could have been only half an hour old. No doubt, he mentioned that the injuries were fresh, which means that they could have been caused within six hours. Thus the medical evidence is not in consistence with the defence theory that Ram Chandra was assaulted by some unknown person in the darkness of the night. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution case cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution does not appear to have come with clean hands and had not examined independent witnesses of the locality and the probability that the occurrence took place after sun set in the darkness of the night cannot be ruled out, which entitles the appellants to an acquittal. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed and the conviction of the appellants and the sentences inflicted upon them are set aside and they are acquittal of all the offences with which they were charged. They are on bail. They need not surrender their bail bonds which stand discharged.