R.S. VERMA, J.—In all nine persons were put up for trial before learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, "Hanumangarh, with regard to en incident that took place on 2.7.82 at 8.30 p.m. in village Chak Dhola near the street of one Mal Singh. In this incident, Bakshish Singh alias Mithu Singh by caste Jat Sikh and resident of Chak Dhola was done to death along with his wife Smt. Jeet Kaur. Besides this, their daughter PW 1 Jeeto (also called Jeet Kaur) was also assaulted with the result that she sustained a number of injuries. Learned trial Judge, after due trial, acquitted accused Sadhu Singh and Gurdayal Singh, since be was not satisfied about their participation in the occurrence. He, however, by his judgment and order dated 3 9.83/5.9 83 convicted Modan Singh. Darshan Singh, Mithu Singh, Major Singh, Aatma Singh, Balwant Singh and Ukar Singh for offences under sections 148, 302 read with 149 and 307 read with 149 IPC. On the first count, he sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. On the seconed count, each one of them was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, each. On the last count, each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment each. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved, Madan Singh, Darshan Singh, Mithu Singh, Major Singh and Aatma Singh have filed D B. Criminal Appeal No. 345/83 while Kulwant Singh and Ukar Singh have filed D B. Criminal Appeal No. 346/83. It may here be stated that the State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of Sadhu Singh and Gurdayal Singh. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. In a nutshell, the prosecution story is that deceased Bakshish Singh had some previous litigation with accused Kulwant Singh with the result that there was bad blood between the parties. Kulwant Singh had formed a gang along with other accused persons. 2. In a nutshell, the prosecution story is that deceased Bakshish Singh had some previous litigation with accused Kulwant Singh with the result that there was bad blood between the parties. Kulwant Singh had formed a gang along with other accused persons. On the fateful evening, Bakshish Singh had gone to the Mohalla of Harijans for engaging labour. At about 8-8.30 p.m. cries of deceased Bakshish Singh were heard from near the house of one Mal Singh. At that time, Bakshish Singhs son Baljeet Singh (PW 2) was taking bath in the house of the deceased. The wife of the deceased Basant Kaur and daughter of the deceased Jeeto(PW 1) were also at the house. When Smt. Basant Kaur and Jeeto (PW 1) heard the cries of Bakshish Singh, they rushed out of the house and saw the seven accused persons Modan Singh, Mithu Singh, Darshan Singh Major Singh. Balwant Singh assaulting Bakshish Singh, Mithu Singh was armed with a kripan while all others were armed with gancasas. Near the house of accused Sadhu Singh, Sadhu Singh and Gurdayal Singh were also standing Sadhu Singh carried a gun while Gurdayal Singh carr-ied a gandasa. They were exhorting the aforesaid seven accused persons to kill Bakshish Singh Basant Kaur and Jeeto (PW 1) rushed to rescue of Bakshisih Singh on which accused Major Singh dealt a gandasa blow on the head of Smt. Basant Kaur. Aatma Singh dealt a gandasa blow on the head of Jeeto (PW 1). Having been thus assaulted, Smt. Basant Kaur and Jeeto (PW 1) fell down and Ukar Singh and Balwant Singh started belabouring Jeeto (PW 1) while the other accused persons, who were already assaulting Bakshish Singh started assaulting Smt. Basant Kaur and Bakshish Singh. While this assault was going on, Baljeet Singh (PW 2) also reached the scene of occurrence and proceeded to the rescue of the victims. On this, Gurdayai Singh and Sadhu Singh gave a lalkara that if he went ahead, he would be killed. Baljeet Singh, not detered by this threat proceeded ahead, on which Sadhu Singh fired his gun at Baljeet Singh (PW 2). Baljeet Singh ducked and escaped the gun shot and started running for his life. On this, Sadhu Singh and Gurdayai Singh gave a further lalkara that Baljeet Singh may be caught and may be killed. Baljeet Singh, not detered by this threat proceeded ahead, on which Sadhu Singh fired his gun at Baljeet Singh (PW 2). Baljeet Singh ducked and escaped the gun shot and started running for his life. On this, Sadhu Singh and Gurdayai Singh gave a further lalkara that Baljeet Singh may be caught and may be killed. On this, rest of the seven accused persons rushed after Baljeet Singh to a distance of about 15 paondas (60 approximately). However, Baljeet Singh could not be caught and he rushed to the house of one Mithu Singh alias Sukhdeo Singh (PW 3) and informed him of the incident. Thereafter, he went to the house of one Kaka Singh and informed him also of the incident. Upon such information Kakasingh and Sukhdeo Singh (PW 3) accompanied Baljeet Singh to the scene of occurrence. Baljeet Singh and his companions were giving lalkaras as they were proceeding towards the scene of occurrence presumably with a view to scare away the assailants. On this, the accused persons made good their escape. Accused Mithu Singh left his kripan & accused Major Singh left his gandasa at the spot. On reaching the spot, Baljeet Singh and his companiant saw Bakshish Singh and Smt. Basant Kaur lying dead at the spot. Both of them were bleeding. Jeeto (PW 1) was also lying at the spot but she was alive and on being accosted, she mumbled something. Baljeet Singh requested aforesaid Kaka Singh to take Jeeto (PW 1) to his medi. The mother of Kaka Singh reached the scene of occurrence in the meanwhile. Thereafter Sukhdeo Singh! and Kaka Singhs mother took Jeeto (PW 1) to their house. Kaka Singh went to arrange for some transport and brought a jeep and he along with Sukhdeo Singhs mother took her to Sadul Shahar hospital. There, she was examined by Dr. Shrinath (PW 5). who found the following injuries on her person vide Ex. P 23 :- "1. Incised wound obliquely placed l-1/2" x 1/4"x bone deep on left fronto parietal region (most of the parietal region). 2. Incised wound longitudinally placed 2-12" x1/4" x bone deep on left parietal region about 4-1/2" above the lip of pinna. 3. Contusion with diffused swelling 1-1/2" x 1-1/4" on dorsum of right hand on thumb side. 4. Contusion 2" x 3/4" in front of right knee joint. 5. 2. Incised wound longitudinally placed 2-12" x1/4" x bone deep on left parietal region about 4-1/2" above the lip of pinna. 3. Contusion with diffused swelling 1-1/2" x 1-1/4" on dorsum of right hand on thumb side. 4. Contusion 2" x 3/4" in front of right knee joint. 5. Contusion 4" x 1/2" right infra scapular to mid auxiliary and lower l/3rd of chest in front. 6. Contusion 2" x 1/2" back of right shoulder. 7. Contusion 2" x 1/2" back of middle and upper 1/3rd of left forearm. 8. Incised wound \" x 1/6" x 1/6" upper part of pinna right ear. 9. Contusion 2" x1-1/2" back of left shoulder." It may be recalled that latter on Jeet Kaur was x-rayed by Dr. Kailash Markan-day (PW 4) to confirm the nature of her injuries and injury no, 5 was found to be grievous inasmuch as she had sustained fractures of 9th & 10th ribs. Rest of her injuries were simple. Injuries 1, 2 and 13 were caused by sharp object while rest of the injuries had been caused by blunt objects. 3. In the meanwhile, Sukhdeo Singh and Baljeet Singh together proceeded to police station, Sadul Shahar at a distance of 7 miles from Chak Dhola to lodge the report of the incident. Baljeet Singh lodged an F.I.R. on the night of 3.7.82 at 1 a.m. with PW 9 Jagar Singh at police station, Sadul Shahar. On this, Shri Jagar Singh went to the spot in the morning and prepared site plan Ex. P 2 and its legend Ex. P2A. He found that the dead bodies of Bakshish Singh and Smt. Basant Kaur were lying at the spot. He prepared panchayatnama cum memos of description of dead bodies Exs. P 15 and P 1 . A chunni of deceased Smt. Basant Kaur was lying at the spot, which was recovered by Jagar Singh vide Ex. P3. Jagar Singh also recovered a torn diary with currency notes of Rs. 62/- from the spot vide Ex. P4. He recovered a ring and a comb and a pair of blood stained shoes also from the spot and seizure memos were prepared in respect of these seizures. He also recovered a yellow turban from the scene of occurrence vide Ex. P9 and a gandasa vide Ex. P 10. 62/- from the spot vide Ex. P4. He recovered a ring and a comb and a pair of blood stained shoes also from the spot and seizure memos were prepared in respect of these seizures. He also recovered a yellow turban from the scene of occurrence vide Ex. P9 and a gandasa vide Ex. P 10. He recovered another turban (of blue colour) from the spot and another pair of shoe as well vide Ex. P 11 and Ex P12. He also recovered a sword from the scene of occurrence vide Ex. P13. Likewise, he recovered a towel vide Ex. P14 He also recovered a lathi broken into three pieces and stained with blood vide Ex.P15. He recovered blood stained and control soil from near the dead bodies. All the articles seized by him were duly sealed. 4. He arranged for post-mortem examination of the two deceased persons. Dr. Shrinath (PW 5) conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Mithu Singh alias Bakshish Singh on 3.7.82 at 10.30 a.m. at the cremation ground of Chak Dhola. The dead body was identified by his son Baljeet Singh. Rigor morties was present in both the extremities and the dead body was in an early stage of decomposition. He found the following external injuries on his person: — "1. Incised wound of 8" x 1" x cranial cavity running from the outer angle of right eye, running across the temporal region to occipital region. Underlying temporal mastoid. Parietal and occipital and frontal bone fractured in pieces. Brain alongwith meninges severely cut and divided in pieces. Grievous by sharp weapon. 2. Incised wound of 2" x 1" x cranial cavity lying on right parietal region near mid line underlying bone fractured brain alongwith meninges cut. Grievous by sharp weapon. 3. Incised wound of 5" x l-1/2" x l-1/2" running from tragous of right ear and behind the ear to back of right cervical region. Tragous is cut underlying muscles and blood vessels.- deeplycut. Mastoid bone fractured. 4. Contusion 1" x 1/2" present on upper eyelid of right thigh simple blunt. 5. Contusion of 3/4" x 1/2" x present on upper eyelid of left eye simple by blunt. 6. Contusion 1" x 3/4" present in the midd on the middle and right side of mendibula region. Mastoid bone fractured. 4. Contusion 1" x 1/2" present on upper eyelid of right thigh simple blunt. 5. Contusion of 3/4" x 1/2" x present on upper eyelid of left eye simple by blunt. 6. Contusion 1" x 3/4" present in the midd on the middle and right side of mendibula region. Lower jaw fractured Canines inciser teeth central and lateral on right side loosened and about to fall. Blood clots present. Grievous by blunt weapon. 7. Incised wound of 1" x 1/4" x1/4" present in front of upper 1/3rd of right cervical region simple by sharp weapon. 8. Incised wound of 1" x 1/4" x1/4" present in front of upper l/3rd of right leg simple by sharp. 9. Bruise of 1/2"x1/2" in front of upper 1/3rd of right thigh simple by blunt. 10. Incised wound 3" x 1/4" x 1/4" present in lower l/3rd of right chest in back simple by sharp. 11. Bruise of 4" x 1/2" running longitudinally near mid line in the back of right therasic region simple and blunt. 12. Contusion 2" x 1/2" in the back of upper l/3rd of right arm. Simple by blunt weapon. 13. Contusion 2" x1/2" present in the back of right shoulder simple by blunt. 14. Stab wound of 1/2" x 1/2" x 1-1/4" in the back of right parietal fossa. Simple by sharp weapon. 15. Stab wound of 1/2" x 1/4" x1" in right gluteal fossa simple by sharp weapon." All the injuries were antimortem in nature. The cause of death in the opinion of the Dr. Shrinath was severe injury to brain. In his opinion, the injuries had been caused within 24 hours of the post-mortem examination and each one of the injuries no. 1,2 and 3 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Dr. Shrinath prepared post-mortem report Ex. P25 in this regard. 5. Dr. Shrinath (PW 5) conducted the post-mortem examination of Smt. Basant Kaur the same day at 11.30 a.m. at the same cremation ground. This dead body Was also identified by PW 2 Baljeet Singh. Rigor rnorties was present on both the upper and lower extremities. Both the eyes were closed and pupils were dilated. Following external injuries were found on her person:— "1. Incised wound 3" x 1/2 x deep to carnial cavity lying on left parietooccipital region. This dead body Was also identified by PW 2 Baljeet Singh. Rigor rnorties was present on both the upper and lower extremities. Both the eyes were closed and pupils were dilated. Following external injuries were found on her person:— "1. Incised wound 3" x 1/2 x deep to carnial cavity lying on left parietooccipital region. Left parietal and occipital bone fractured and brain along-with meninges severely cut. Grevious by sharp weapon. 2. Incised wound 3-1/2" x 1/2" deep to carnial cavity lying on left parietal region near midline. Underlying bone fractured and brain alongwith meninges cut. Grievious by sharp. 3. Incised wound of 4-1/2" x 1/2" x 1" lying and running from middle l/3rd of left carvical region in front to back and then to right carvical back under-lying mescles and blood vessels severely cut. Underlying third carvical verto-bra fractured. Grievous by sharp weapon. 4. Incised wound of 2"x 1/2"x 1" lying transversely in lower part of thorasic region in mide line. Some part of it lying on right some part on left side. Underlying 8th thorasic vertebra. Severely cut, Mescles, blood Vessels and other tissues severely cut. Grievous by sharp weapon. 5. Incised wound of 1-1/2" x1/4" x1/4" present in the back of upper l/3rd of left arm. Simple by sharp weapon. 6. Contusion 4" x 1/2" present on right scapular region. Simple by blunt weapon. 7. Contusion 4" x 1/2" back of left shoulder simple by blunt weapon. 8. Abrasion 1" x 1/2" infront of upper l/3rd of right leg simple by blunt. 9. Abrasion 3/4" x 1/2" infront of middle l/3rd of left leg simple injury by blunt. 10. Abrasion 3/4" x \" infront of upper l/3rd of left leg simple by blunt weapon." All the injuries were anti-mortem and in the opinion of Dr. Shrinath, she had died due to severe brain injury and fracture of 3rd carvical and 8th therasic vertebra. The death had been caused within 24 hours of the post-mortem examination. Each one of injuries no. 1 to 4 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and according to him, she must have died soon after the assault. He prepared post-mortem report Ex. P. 24 in this regard. 5. After the post-mortem examinations, the investigating Officer recovered the wearing apparel of the two deceased persons Bakshish Singh and Smt. Basant Kaur vide Ex. P 19 and Ex. He prepared post-mortem report Ex. P. 24 in this regard. 5. After the post-mortem examinations, the investigating Officer recovered the wearing apparel of the two deceased persons Bakshish Singh and Smt. Basant Kaur vide Ex. P 19 and Ex. P 20 respectively. He also recovered a golden ring from the dead body of Smt. Basant Kaur vide Ex. P 31. The Investigating Officer claims to have recorded the statements of Smt. Jeet Kaur, Baljeet Singh and Sukhdeo Singh during the course of investigation. It appears that the investigation was thereafter handed over to Abdul Aziz PW 10. On 8.7.82, Abdul Aziz arrested Kalwant Singh, Gurdayal Singh, Aatrna Singh, Major Singh, Mithu Singh, Darshan Singh, Modan Singh, Sadhu Singh, & Ukar Singh vide Ex. P 32 to Ex. P. 40 respectively. The same day, he recovered the wearing apparel of Mst. Jeet Kaur vide Ex. P 21. 6. On 11.7.82, accused Aatma Singh volunteered information in respect of a gandasa to Abdul Aziz. This information was recorded in memo Ex. P. 41 and in pursuance of this information, a gandasa is said to have been recovered at the instance and from the possession of the accused Aatma Singh vide Ex. P. 42. The same day i.e. on 11.7.82. Abdul Aziz obtained a sample of the hair from the head of accused Major Singh vide Ex. P 43. It is alleged that accused Major Singh that very day volunteered information to Abdul Aziz in respect of a gandasa and a shirt, which was recorded as Ex. P 44. In pursuance of the aforesaid information, a blood stained shirt was recovered at the instance and possession of the accused Major Singh. On 11.7.82 itself, Abdul Aziz recorded information of accused Sadhu Singh in respect of a gun. In pursuance of such information, a 12 bore gun was recovered at the instance and from the possession of the accused Major Singh vide Ex. P. 47. 7. The various articles recovered by the Investigating Officers were sent to the State Forensic Laboratory, Jaipur, from where report Ex P 48 was received, It appears that the articles were, however, not sent to Serologist. 8. Upon such investigation, all the accused persons including the two accused, who have been acquitted by the learned Add]. Sessions Judge, were challaned to the court of Judl. 8. Upon such investigation, all the accused persons including the two accused, who have been acquitted by the learned Add]. Sessions Judge, were challaned to the court of Judl. Magistrate No. 2, Hanumangarh, who, eventually committed them to stand trial for offences under sections 302, and in the alternative 302 read with 149 and 307 and in the alternative, 307 read with 149 and 148 I.P.C. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed due charges against all the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 9. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. The accused persons maintained their denial and pleaded that they had been falsely implicated. However, the plea of the accused Major Singh is that on the fateful day, his two brothers were to be married and the next morning, the marriage procession had to leave. This accused had lost earlier Rs. 20/- to deceased Bakshish Singh while gambling. That day, Bakshish Singh came to demand Rs. 20/-from him. He was carrying a kripan. On being asked to pay the amount, this accused told Bakshish Singh that he would pay the money later. On this, Bakshish Singh started abusing him and in reply, this accused also called him names. On this, deceased Bakshish Singh dealt a kripan blow on the left leg of this accused with the result that this accused fell down. In the meanwhile, the persons who had assembled in connection with the marriage of his brothers came to the spot. In the meanwhile, the wife of Bakshish Singh also came to the spot armed with a lathi. Upon this, the persons who had assembled there, gave beating (to deceased persons) but he did not know which of them had caused beating. He himself had become unconscious and he had been removed from the scene of occurrence. According to him Kaka Singh, Teja Singh, Mazabis and Pala Singh Kumhar had also assembled at the spot. However, it appears that no defence was led by the accused persons. 10. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge after hearing both the sides, arrived at a firm conclusion that on the night of 2.7.82, an incident did take place wherein Bakshishsingh and his wife Smt. Basant Kaur had been one to death and their daughter Jeeto (PW 1) had been assaulted causing her various injuries. 10. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge after hearing both the sides, arrived at a firm conclusion that on the night of 2.7.82, an incident did take place wherein Bakshishsingh and his wife Smt. Basant Kaur had been one to death and their daughter Jeeto (PW 1) had been assaulted causing her various injuries. He, however, held that participation of accused Sadhu Singh and Gurdayal Singh in the incident was not established and the prosecution story regarding the participation of these accused persons was unreliable. He, however, held that all the present accused appellants did participate in the aforesaid occurrence. The accused appellants had formed an unlawful assembly; the common object of which was to cause death of Bakshish Singh and Smt. Basant Kaur and to cause injuries to Smt. Jeet Kaur. It was in the furtherance of the common object of the aforesaid assembly that Bakshish Singh and Smt. Basant Kaur had been done to death and Jeet Kaur had been grievously injured. Upon such findings, he convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as stated above. 11. By way of these appeals, the appellants challenge their convictions and sentences recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 12. In support of the two appeals, we have heard Sarva Shri Dungar Singh and M.L. Garg, who seriously challenge the convictions of the appellants. We have also heard the learned P.P., who equally vehemently contests these appeals. We have also carefully perused the record of the learned court below. 13. We may state at the outset that there is absolutely no doubt that an incident did take place on the evening of 2.7.82 at Chak Dhola near the street of Mal Singh wherein deceased Bakshish Singh, his wife Smt. Basant Kaur and his daughter Jeeto (PW 1) were assaulted and resulted in the deaths of Bakshish Singh and Smt. Basant Kaur and numerous injuries to Jeeto. That the assault must have been made by quite a few persons is also abundantly clear from the number of injuries found on the persons of the two deceased persons and also on the body of Smt. Jeeto. This part of the prosecution case is not challenged before us and we have no hesitation in accepting this part of the prosecution story which is duly supported by the medical evidence already referred to above. 14. This part of the prosecution case is not challenged before us and we have no hesitation in accepting this part of the prosecution story which is duly supported by the medical evidence already referred to above. 14. The prosecution story mainly rests on eye witness account given by PW 1 Jeeto, PW 2 Baljeet Singh and PW 3 Sukhdeo Singh. Out of these witnesses, PW 1 is a stamped witness in the sense that she herself received numerous injuries in the course of the incident. It is to be remembered that the testimony of these witnesses has been partly found to be unworthy of credence by learned trial Judge so far as these witnesses implicated accused Sadhusingh and Gurdayal Singh. Thus, these witnesses are not wholly reliable witnesses and hence, their testimony has to be scrutinised with due care and caution and would require proper corroboration before we may accept their testimony. We may here briefly mention that according to the testimony of these witnesses, on the exhortation of Gurdayal Singh and Sadhu Singh, Baljeet Singh was fired at by Sadhu Singh but Baljeet Singh ducked and escaped. On exhortation of Sadhu Singh and Gurdayal Singh, the present appellants are said to have chased Baljeet Singh for some distance and when he could not be caught hold of, all the present appellants are said to have assaulted Bakshish Singh and Smt. Basant Kaur while Sadhu Singh and Gurdayal Singh kept on giving lalkaras. Learned trial Judge after careful consideration of the prosecution evidence, has discarded this part of the prosecution story that Sadhu Singh had at all fired at Baljeet Singh or Sadhu Singh and Gurdayal Singh had exhorted the present accused appellants to catch held of Baljeet Singh and the present accused appellants chased Baljeet Singh for some distance on such exhortation. We have already noticed that the State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of Sadhu Singh and Gurdayal Singh. We have carefully perused the evidence of Jeeto, Baljeet Singh and Sadhu Singh and we are in entire agreement with learned Addl. Sessions Judge that the aforesaid part of the prosecution story is unreliable, unworthy of credence and cannot be accepted. 15. We may here mention that before us we have three sets of appellants, one set consists.of Modan Singh, Mithu Singh and Darshan Singh, all of whom are sons of Hajur Singh. Sessions Judge that the aforesaid part of the prosecution story is unreliable, unworthy of credence and cannot be accepted. 15. We may here mention that before us we have three sets of appellants, one set consists.of Modan Singh, Mithu Singh and Darshan Singh, all of whom are sons of Hajur Singh. They are Mazabi Sikhs by caste and there is apparently nothing to connect them with accused Sadhu Singh and Gurdayal Singh or for that] matter with Kulwant Singh and Ukar Singh appellants. Accused appellants Aatma Singh and Major Singh are also Mazabi Sikhs and it does not appear that they have any relationship with accused appellants Modan Singh. Darshan Singh and Mithu Singh. Accused appellants Kulwant Singh and Ukar Singh are sons of Lal Singh and are Jat Sikhs by caste. Sadhu Singh and Gurdayal Singh are also Jat Sikhs. It may be mentioned that Gurdayal Singh, Kulwant Singh and Ukar Singh do not reside in the locality where other accused appellants reside. There does not appear to be any community of interest among Mazabi Sikh accused appellants and Jat Sikh accused appellants. Though the prosecution has alleged that all the appellants had ganged up with Kulwant Singh and Ukar Singh but there is no credible evidence to support this allegation except bald statement by Jeeto that all the accused persons had formed a gang with Kuldeep Singh and Ukar Singh. 16. It may be recalled here that Kulwant Singh and Ukar Singh were having some previous litigation with deceased Bakshish Singh. It appears that their fields were adjacent to the field of the deceased Bakshish Singh and there was some dispute between the deceased Bakshish Singh and Kulwant Singh and Ukar Singh with regard to the bat (dividing med) and the turn of water. As back as 27.9.79, Bakshish Singh deceased lodged a complaint with Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sangaria that Kulwant Singh, Ukar Singh, Sadhu Singh, Gurdayal Singh and certain other persons were quarreling with him in connection with turn of water and were threatening him with the result that he apprehended danger to his life. This complaint appears to have been forwarded to police station, Sadul Shahar. It led to the complaint Ex. P50A in the Court of Executive Magistrate, Hanumangarh, for taking preventive action against Ukar Singh, Kulwant Singh, Gurdayal Singh, Sadhu Singh and certain other persons. This complaint appears to have been forwarded to police station, Sadul Shahar. It led to the complaint Ex. P50A in the Court of Executive Magistrate, Hanumangarh, for taking preventive action against Ukar Singh, Kulwant Singh, Gurdayal Singh, Sadhu Singh and certain other persons. It, further, appears that on 12.6.81, deceased Bakshish Singh lodged an F.I R. with police station, Sadul Shahar alleging that Kulwant Singh and Ukar Singh assaulted him and his son Kor Singh on 12.6.81 at 7 a.m. It appears that on this F.I.R., a case under section 307 and 34 I.P.C. was registered against Kulwant Singh and Ukar Singh. This evidence goes to show that accused appellants Kulwant Singh and Ukar Singh as also accused persons Sadhu Singh and Gurdayal Singh had inimical relations with the deceased Bakshish Singh and the members of his family Now enmity is a double edged weapon. On one hand it may furnish motive to appellants Kulwant Singh and Ukar Singh for commith-ing the crime on the other hand, it may very well impel Jeeto and Baljeet Singh to implicate them falsely. This would be an added reason for a very careful scrutiny of the testimony of the alleged eye witnesses. Learned counsel for the appel-lants submit that all the present accused appellants are said to have been armed with sharp edged weapons and it is not alleged that the weapons had been used from their wrong side. Deceased Bakshish Singh is said to have received as many as seven blunt weapon injuries. Likewise, Smt. Basant Kaur is said to have received five blunt weapon injuries. Similarly, Jeeto received as many as six blunt weapon injuries. It is submitted that when the prosecution witnesses do not allege use of sharp edged weapon from their wrong side, then those injurise remain unexplained and this creates a doubt about the veracity of the version of the prosecution witnesses. Learned P.P. submits that assault on Bakshish Singh had commenced prior to the arrival of Jeet Kaur and Baljeet Singh at the scene of occurrence and hence, they could not be expected to explain the injuries caused by blunt weapons on the person of Bakshish Singh. With regard to blunt weapon injuries on the person of Smt. Basant Kaur and Jeeto, it is submitted that they were assaulted by a large number of assailants. With regard to blunt weapon injuries on the person of Smt. Basant Kaur and Jeeto, it is submitted that they were assaulted by a large number of assailants. It was a moon lit night and hence, Jeeto or Baljeet Singh might not have noticed that blunt side of the sharp edged weapons had been used. We have carefully considered this contention. So far as blunt weapon injuries to Bakshish Singh are concerned, Jeeto and Baljeet Singh could not have explained them since the assault had opened upon Bakshish Singh prior to their arrival at the scene of occurrence. However, matters stand differently when we consider the blunt weapon injuries on the persons of Smt. Basant Kaur deceased and Jeeto. At least, Jeeto could have explain the blunt weapon injuries received on her own person if not those caused to her mother. Since, she was also being assaulted simultaneously, perhaps she might not be in a position to notice how blunt weapon injuries came to be caused to her mother. But her testimony shows that after this witness and Smt. Basant Kaur reached the spot, first of all accused Major Singh caused a gandasa blow on the head of her mother; thereafter Aatma Singh caused a gandasa blow on the head of this witness. Thereafter, she was assaulted by Ukar Singh and Kulwant Singh, while rest of the accused persons started assaulting her mother and father. This testimony goes to show that according to her, only one gandasa blow was given on her head by Aatma Singh and thereafter she was assaulted by Ukar Singh and Kulwant Singh by gandasas. Thus, there were only two accused persons according to her who later on, assaulted her. If these accused persons head used wrong side of the gandasas, there was nothing to prevent Jeeto from saying so but she is silent on this aspect of the matter and we find that the blunt weapon injuries found on the person of this witness have not been explained. If these accused persons head used wrong side of the gandasas, there was nothing to prevent Jeeto from saying so but she is silent on this aspect of the matter and we find that the blunt weapon injuries found on the person of this witness have not been explained. Non epexplanation of the blunt weapon injuries on the person of Bakshish Singh and Smt. Basant Kaur may not be of much importance when seen in the particular circumstances of this case but non-explanation of the blunt weapon injuries on the person of Jeeto vitally affects the prosecution version and we find that there is a vital discrepancy between the version given by Smt. Jeeto regarding actual assault on her and the medical evidence. This makes her testimony unreliable to a great extent. 17. Here we would like to consider the evidence regarding participation of Ukar Singh and Kulwant Singh. Jeeto has deposed about an omnibus participation of Ukar Singh and Kulwant Singh so far as the assaults on her father and mother are concerned. She has, likewise, very vaguely stated that Ukar Singh and Kulwant Singh dealt her gandasa blows. She has not specified a single specific injury on her person, which could be attributed to Ukar Singh or Kulwant Singh. This creates a good deal of suspicion regarding the participation of Ukar Singh and Kulwant Singh in the incident. Testimony of Baljeet Singh does not advance the matters much because he has also given an omnibus statement that his father, mother and sister were being assaulted by all the accused appellants out of whom Mithu Singh wielded a kripan and the rest were wielding gandasas. This version is different from the version of Jeeto inasmuch as Jeeto claims that she was first assaulted by Aatma Singh and later on, the assault on her was continued by Ukar Singh and Kulwant Singh alone while the other appellants were busy in belabouring Bakshish Singh and Smt. Basant Kaur. Of course, in his cross examination he does say that Kulwant Singh and Ukar Singh inflicted injuries to his sister and he had seen both of them assaulting her. However, he has not assigned a single specific injury either to Kulwant Singh or Ukar Singh and he admits that he could not say on what part of the body of her sister, Ukar Singh or Kulwant Singh inflicted injuries. However, he has not assigned a single specific injury either to Kulwant Singh or Ukar Singh and he admits that he could not say on what part of the body of her sister, Ukar Singh or Kulwant Singh inflicted injuries. When only Ukar Singh and Kulwant Singh continued a separate assault on Jeeto, it would not have been difficult for Baljeet Singh to specify individual overt acts of Ukar Singh and Kulwant Singh. He might not have been in a position to notice each and every one of the blows dealt by Ukar Singh or Kulwant Singh but could have stated about at least some of the blows given by them to Jeeto. He also does not explain how blunt weapon injuries were caused to the person of Jeeto. If he had really seen the assault made by Ukar Singh and Kulwant Singh on the person of Jeeto, he could have shown how blunt weapon injuries on the person of Jeeto were caused. We may here add that the story that after Aatma Singh gave a blow to Jeeto, Ukar Singh and Kulwant Singh continued to assault Jeeto and the other accused persons continued to assault Bakshish Singh and Basant Kaur, does not find mention in the F.I.R. 18. Sukhdeo Singhs presence during the course of assault at the scene of occurrence is bit doubtful. According to the prosecution case, Baljeet Singh had rushed away from the scene of occurrence when he was given a chase by some of the accused appellants. According to him, at that time, his mother, father and sister were being belaboured, According to Baljeet Singh, he first went to the house of Sukhdeo Singh and narrated the incident to him Later on, he along with Sukhdeo Singh went to the house of one Kaka Singh and narrated the incident to Kaka Singh. It was thereafter that Sukhdeo Singh accompanied him to the scene of occurrence. It is extremely doubtful that when Baljeet Singh had gone away, the accused appellants would have waited for his return along with Sukhdeo Singh and Kaka Singh and would have continued assaulting Bakshish Singh, Jeeto and Smt. Basant Kaur till their arrival. It would be worthwhile to recall that according to the prosecution story, assault on Bakshish Singh, Jeeto and Smt. Basant Kaur had commenced prior to the running away of Baljeet Singh. It would be worthwhile to recall that according to the prosecution story, assault on Bakshish Singh, Jeeto and Smt. Basant Kaur had commenced prior to the running away of Baljeet Singh. According to the prosecution, as many as seven persons were assaulting these three persons. Baljeet must have taken sometime in reaching the house of Sukhdeo Singh and narrating the incident to him and further sometime in reaching the house of Kaka Singh and narrating the incident to him. The bouses of Sukhdeo Singh and Kaka Singh have not been shown in the site plan by the Investigation Officer. Sukhdeo Singh claimed that when he along with Baljeet Singh and Kaka Singh reached the spot, Bakshish Singh, Smt. Basant Kaur and Jeeto were still being assaulted. We have our own doubt about the truth of this assertion. This witness claims that all the accused persons were assaulting Bakshish Singh, Jeeot and Smt. Basant Kaur and he saw Ukarsingh inflicting injuries on the hand and face of jeeto This witness does not explain the blunt weapon injuries on the person of Jeeto. He speaks of an injury on the face but the same is not corroborated by medical evidence. Thus, the prosecution evidence is unworthy of credence so far as participation of Ukar Singh and Kulwant Singh in the incident is concerned. The possibility that those two persons have been involved in this incident because of previous enmity, cannot be ruled out beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, and we have grave doubt if they at all participated in the occurrence. 19. Once the participation of Gurdayal Singh, Sadhu Singh, Ukar Singh and Kulwantsingh in the occurrence becomes doubtful, the question would arise whether the testimony of Jeeto, Baljeet Singh and Sukhdeo Singh can be pressed into service for maintaining the convictions of the other accused appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants relied in this connection upon Devilal v. The State of Raj (1) and Balaka Singh vs. The State of Punjab (2) and contended that this Court should not make out a new case for the prosecution after leaving out Gurdayal Singh, Sadhu Singh. Ukar Singh and Kulwant Singh. It is submitted that the case of these accused persons is not severable from that of the other accused appellants. Ukar Singh and Kulwant Singh. It is submitted that the case of these accused persons is not severable from that of the other accused appellants. In reply to this contention, learned P. P. contends that the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not apply to this country and this Court should make a serious effort for disengaging truth from falsehood and convictions of such of the accused appellants ought to be maintained whose participation in the incident is proved. In this regard, he has drawn our pointed attention to the statement of accused Major Singh, who has admitted his presence at the spot. 20. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. This is true that the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not apply to India. This is also true that the courts should try to disengage truth from falsehood but it is to be remembered that such an attempt can be made only when truth is separable from the falsehood. When the grain cannot be separated from the chaff because the grain and the chaff are so inextricably mixed up that in the process of separation the Court will have to reconstruct an absolutely new case for the prosecution by divercing the essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, then this principle does not apply. Hence, we will have to see whether this is a case where nuggets of truth can be cufled out from the mass of untruth, without making out anew case. for the prosecution. The principle sub-stratum of the prosecution story is that the incident took place because of the previous enmity of Kulwant Singh and others with deceased Bakshish Singh and it was because of this enmity that this assault took place. When participation of Kulwant Singh and Ukar Singh becomes doubtful, this alleged genesis of the prosecution story falls to the ground. As already stated, Gurdayal Singh, Sadhu Singh, Kulwant Singh and Ukar Singh are also Jat Sikhs and it was only with these that Bakshish Singh was having enimical relations. It is not understandable how and why the Mazabi Sikhs accused appellants should have associated themselves at all. As noticed above, no community of interest among Mazabi accused persons on one hand and Jat Sikhs accused persons has been established. 21. It is not understandable how and why the Mazabi Sikhs accused appellants should have associated themselves at all. As noticed above, no community of interest among Mazabi accused persons on one hand and Jat Sikhs accused persons has been established. 21. It is to be recalled that the incident took place in the Mohalla of Mazabi Sikhs accused persons. The prosecution has failed to explain why the Mazabi Sikhs accused persons should have opened an assault upon deceased Bakshish Singh and later on on his wife and daughter. As already stated, accused Major Singh has admitted his presence at the spot and has given a totally different version of the occurrence. Of course, the version given by Major Singh has not been established but, the prosecution story leaves us guessing as to how the occurrence started and as to who were the persons, taking part in the actual assault. The mystery [is deepened by the fact that the Investigating Officer found one lathi, stained with blood and broken into three pieces lying out the spot. It is not explained as to who wielded this lathi. The other recoveries do not adequately connect the accused persons or any one of them with the occurrence since no serological examination of the article was got made. 22. There is nothing on the record to show that the accused persons had known previously that that evening, deceased Bakshish Singh would go to engage labour in the mohalla of Harijans and would be returning thereafter from near the street of Mal Singh. There is no evidence that all the accused persons were seen in the street of Mal Singh assembled at one place prior to the incident. This lacuna in the prosecution story creates a suspicion that the assault must have taken place due to some incident not brought on record, which might have taken place in the street of Mal Singh, It is to be recalled that the houses of various Mazabi Sikhs accused persons, namely, Modan Singh, Mithu Singh, Kaka Singh, Aatma Singh and Major Singh are in the vicinity of the place where the incident took place. Out of the Jat Sikhs accused persons only the house of accused Sadhu Singh is in the vicinity of the place of occurrence. Out of the Jat Sikhs accused persons only the house of accused Sadhu Singh is in the vicinity of the place of occurrence. The explanation rendered by the accused Major Singh though not established by the evidence, is highly plausible to explain the genesis of the incident and if there be even this slightest truth in the explanation rendered by Major Singh, then the entire prosecution story becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence. In these circumstances, it would be difficult, any, impossible to distinguish the case of the Mazabi accused appellants from the rest of the accused persons. In our opinion, this is a case where it is impossible to sift grain from the chaff, without -making out a new prosecution case and we are afraid we are not permitted to make out a new story on behalf of the prosecution. We have already referred to Balaka Singhs case (supra) and Devilals case (supra) in this regard. In Devilals case, it was observed as follows : — "In criminal trials it is of prime importance for the accused to know as to what the exact prosecution case is. If the pivot of the prosecution case is not accepted a new prosecution case cannot be made to imperil defence. In the present case, two of the accused are held both by the trial court and by the High Court not to have been anywhere near the scene of occurrence. The entire prosecution case was that those two persons pointed to the enemies, namely, Motaram and his son and nephew. The further prosecution case was that those two persons gave the order to the accused to attack them. Those two persons opened the gun fire. Therefore when those two persons are found both by the Sessions Court and the High Court not to have been present the whole prosecution case changes colour and becomes unworthy of belief." In the present case, the prosecution story was that it was at the instance and exhortation of Gurdayal Singh and Sadhusingh that the fatal assaults took place. This was also the prosecution version that the incident took place due to previous enmity between Bakshish Singh on one hand and Ukar Singh and Kulwant Singh on the other. It was further the prosecution case that Sadhu Singh had fired at Baljeet Singh. This was also the prosecution version that the incident took place due to previous enmity between Bakshish Singh on one hand and Ukar Singh and Kulwant Singh on the other. It was further the prosecution case that Sadhu Singh had fired at Baljeet Singh. When their case has been distinguished by the learned trial Judge (and rightly so) and we find participation of Ukar Singh and Kulwant Singh doubtful, the pivot of the prosecution case gets dislodged and the entire prosecu-tion story becomes unreliable. In Balaka Singhs case (supra), this very principle has been enunciated and it has been observed as follows:- "The Court must make an attempt to separate grain from the chaff, the truth from the falsehood, yet this could only be possible when the truth is separable from the falsehood. Where the grain cannot be separated from the chaff because the grain and the chaff are so inextricably mixed-up that in the process of separation the Court would have to reconstruct an absolutely new case for the prosecution by divorcing the essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, then this principle will not apply. We are satisfied that in the facts of the present case, having regard to the partisan and interested evidence of the prosecution witnesses who can implicate the appellants and the four accused equally with regard to the assault on the deceased it is not possible to reject the prosecution case with respect to the four accused and accept it with respect to the other five appellants. If all the witnesses could in one breath implicate the four accused who appear to be innocent, then one cannot vouch safe for the fact that even the acts attributed to Balaka Singh, Joginder Singh, Pritam Singh, Darbara Singh and Jarnail Singh may have been conveniently made to suit the needs of the prosecution case having regard to the animus which the witnesses as also Banta Singh bore against the appellants. In these circumstances, therefore, we are satisfied that in view of the finding of the High Court that the FIR was a belated document having come into existence much later than the time it is said to have been recorded and which adds the names of the four accused against whom, the prosecution case is absolutely identical with the appellants, the case of the appellants cannot at all be distinguished from that of the four accused in any respect. If the case against the four accused fails, then the entire prosecution will have to be discarded and it will not be possible for this Court to make out anew case to convict the appellants as has been done by the High Court." 23. To sum up, we find that in this case, the presence of PW 3 Sukhdeo Singh so as to enable him to have seen the assault is extremely doubtful. Jeeto and Baljeet Singh are enimical and partisan witnesses and they appear to have falsely implicated at least four Jat Sikhs accused persons. Their cases are so inextricably mixed up with the acts of the other Mazabi accused persons that we find it impossible to separate chaff from the grain and truth from falsehood. 24. We do not mean to say that the present accused appellants might not have assaulted the deceased Bakshish Singh, Smt. Basant Kaur and injured Jeeto, but we find it highly unsafe and hazardous to act upon the testimony of the three prosecution witnesses, that we do not consider it safe to act upon the same. The prosecution is required to prove its case beyond hilt. There is a good deal of diffence between accused must have committed the offence and accused might have committed the offence. The distance between the two is short but precipitous and this distance is required to be traversed by the prosecution to enable it to maintain the conviction of the accused appellants. 25. In the present case, we find that the prosecution has failed to traverse this distance and the story set up by the prosecution has not been proved beyond shadow of doubt. 26. 25. In the present case, we find that the prosecution has failed to traverse this distance and the story set up by the prosecution has not been proved beyond shadow of doubt. 26. The result is that both these appeals are accepted and all the accused appellants Major Singh, Aatma Singh, Mithu Singh, Modan Singh, Darshan Singh, Kulwant Singh, and Ukar Singh are acquitted of offences under sections 148, 302 read with 149 and 307 read with 149 IPC. All such accused appellants, who are behind bars shall be released immediately if not required in any other case. Such of the accused appellants, who are on bail, need not surrender and their bail bonds are cancelled.