G. K. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) KUNDAN Singh and Kinna alias Laxman Singh have preferred this appeal against the judgement and order dated 23-6-1983 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 1981, by which Kundan Singh has been convicted under Section 307 read with Section 149, I. P. C. 147, 332 read with Section 149 and 224, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years, two years, three years and two years respectively, while appellant Kinna has been convicted under Sections 307, 148, 332 and 225, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years, three years, two years and two years respectively. The sentences have been made to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, has been that Tendra Pal Singh and Deo Ram, constables of police station Kotwali, Pithoragraph, were on patrol duty at about 9 p. m. on 15-3-1981, when they found Kundan Singh, appellant, in a drunken state in front of Bhotia Hotel. On being questioned, the appellant started abusing the police constables. They, therefore, apprehended him and wanted to take him to the police station. Kundan Singh started making noise, whereupon several persons, namely, Kinna, Bir Singh, Diwan Singh, Mahendra Singh, Chandra Singh, Jagdish Singh came there and surrounded the aforesaid two constables and obstructed them in taking Kundan Singh to the police station. It was alleged that the aforesaid persons started beating the constables with fists and kicks and Kinna appellant wielded a knife blow on the neck of constable Tendra Pal Singh, but it hit at his cheek. It was also alleged that the assailants pushed Tendra Pal Singh below a stair towards Subhash Chowk on seeing another police party and then ran away. It was also alleged that a purse containing Rs. 61/-, keys a personal letter and the coat of Tendra Pal Singh constable had also been taken away by these assailants. ( 3 ) TENDRA Pal Singh lodged a first information report on 15th of March, 1981 at 9. 45 p. m. at the police station Kotwali. The injuries of the Tendra Pal Singh constable were examined by Dr. Chandra Singh Hayoki at 10 p. m. on the same day in the district Hospital, Pithoragraph. ( 3 ) TENDRA Pal Singh lodged a first information report on 15th of March, 1981 at 9. 45 p. m. at the police station Kotwali. The injuries of the Tendra Pal Singh constable were examined by Dr. Chandra Singh Hayoki at 10 p. m. on the same day in the district Hospital, Pithoragraph. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined in all six witnesses, namely, Hasan Uddin (P. W. 1), Pushkar (P. W. 2), Dr. Chandra Singh (P. W. 3), Tendra Pal Singh (P. W. 4), Deo Ram (P. W. 5) and Sultan Singh (P. W. 6 ). P. Ws. 1 and 6 were investigating officers, P. W. 3 was the doctor who had examined the injuries of Tendra Pal Singh, P. Ws. 4 and 5 were the constables who were injured and P. W. 2 was Pushkar Singh, Advocate, who simply stated that he happened to hear the noise when he was taking his meals inside his house and he informed the police on phone about the incident in question. He clearly stated that he did not see the actual incident at all. ( 5 ) THE accused persons pleaded not guilty and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. They did not give any evidence in their defence. ( 6 ) THE learned trial court convicted and sentenced appellants Kundan Singh and Kinna as indicated above and acquitted the remaining accused persons. Feeling dissatisfied with their convictions and sentences the appellants have preferred this appeal. ( 7 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 7a. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it has come in evidence that the incident in question occurred during Holi days and some untoward incident which might have taken place has been given the present shape. He further submitted that constable Tendra Pal Singh (P. W. 4) was admittedly in plain clothes at the time of the incident in question and since evidence of the prosecution against five co-accused was not found satisfactory and they have been acquitted, the appellants also deserved the same benefit but they have wrongly been convicted and sentenced. According to him, the entry of the general diary about despatch of Tendra Pal Singh and Deo Ram constables on patrol duty at 7. According to him, the entry of the general diary about despatch of Tendra Pal Singh and Deo Ram constables on patrol duty at 7. 05 p. m. on 15th of March, 1981, appears to have been manipulated for the purposes of the case. He also submitted that the appellants had not been put up for test identification parade although it had come in evidence that they were not known to the witnesses from before. He also submitted that the aid of Section 149, I. P. C. has wrongly been taken in convicting the appellants by the trial court as it had already acquitted five co-accused. He argued that in this view of the matter the conviction of the appellants under Section 147 or 148, I. P. C. becomes bad in the eye of law. ( 8 ) THE carbon copy of the general diary of 15th of March, 1981 written at 7. 05 p. m. contains original signatures of the two constables, Tendra Pal Singh and Deo Ram. The explanation given by Sultan Singh Investigating Officer, (P. W. 6) was found incorrect by the trial court in this regard. The learned trial court, however, held that the signatures might have been obtained on the carbon copy subsequently for other reasons. In the face of the specific stand taken by the investigating officer for the presence of the signatures on the carbon copy, there was no justification for the trial court to infer that the signatures on the carbon copy might have been obtained for other reasons. Moreover, it appears unusual that in the said entry of the general diary it has been specifically mentioned that Tendra Pal Singh had been despatched in plain clothes while the other constable had been despatched in the uniform. ( 9 ) IN the first information report Tendra Pal Singh had mentioned that his purse containing Rs. 61/- was found missing from the pocket of his coat. In evidence he stated that his coat had also been removed and was found missing. The investigating agency claimed to have recovered the coat and the amount of Rs. 61/- from co-accused who have already been acquitted by the trial court. The aforesaid circumstance also shows that the investigation was not above board in the present case. In evidence he stated that his coat had also been removed and was found missing. The investigating agency claimed to have recovered the coat and the amount of Rs. 61/- from co-accused who have already been acquitted by the trial court. The aforesaid circumstance also shows that the investigation was not above board in the present case. ( 10 ) IT has come in the statement of Tendra Pal Singh that he did not know any accused other than Jagdish Singh and Chander Singh from before and that he came to know of the name of Kundan Singh on the spot as the other accused were calling him by that name. It is significant that none of the accused persons had been put up for identification by the prosecution witnesses. There is nothing on the record to show how Tendra Pal Singh could nominate all the accused persons specially Kundan Singh while lodging the first information report. ( 11 ) THE statement of Tendra Pal Singh about the incident in question does not inspire confidence because he has tried to improve the case with regard to snatching away of his coat and causing injuries by dandas and a knife. He also claimed that he had become unconscious after the incident. According to the medical evidence, there was no reason for his becoming unconscious. Deo Ram Constable (P. W. 5) stated that he did not receive any significant injury in the incident in question and that he did not file any report about the incident in question. He did not get, the injuries medically examined. This circumstance in a way discredits the case of the prosecution that Tendra Pal Singh along with Deo Ram was surrounded by the accused persons and some witnesses got Kundan Singh released after causing injuries to the assailants because in that case, Deo Ram might also have received some injuries. It is also significant to note that the nature of injuries of Tendra Pal Singh are such that they could have been caused by a fall. It has come in evidence that Tendra Pal Singh had been pushed and fell down about ten steps in the incident in question. It may be mentioned here that injury No. 1 which has been described as incised wound was only skin deep on his cheek and Dr. It has come in evidence that Tendra Pal Singh had been pushed and fell down about ten steps in the incident in question. It may be mentioned here that injury No. 1 which has been described as incised wound was only skin deep on his cheek and Dr. Chandra Singh has nowhere mentioned the nature of the edges of the wound whether it was a clear cut wound or had sharp edges. The doctor stated that this injury could also have been caused by falling over the edge of a hard substance. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons given above, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt against the appellants. The charges against the appellants having not been established, they deserve to be acquitted. ( 13 ) THE appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences of the appellants are set aside. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail-bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed. .