JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner alongwith five other accused was tried by the Judicial Magistrate Bayana for the offence under sections 147, 323 and 325/149 IPC and all were convicted. On appeal the conviction was maintained by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur Camp Bayana but he directed that the petitioner and all other accused be given the benefit of probation. The petitioner alone has come up in this revision. His contention is that he has been falsely implicated in this case because the complainant Bhagirath had a motive to implicate him falsely. The petitioner's father bad earlier made some complaints against Bhagirath and for this reason he had enmity. It is contended that the other five accused are all brother and Muslims by caste and that the petitioner had no connection with them so as to join them in causing injuries to Bhagirath. It is also contended that the petitioner lives eight miles away from the place of incident and there was no occasion for him to be present at that place at about 6.30 a.m. in the morning. In the evidence over tact has been alleged only to one Dungar and for the others there is general allegation and they have been found guilty with the aid of section 149 IPC. 2. Referring to the evidence in this case it has been contended that PW 3 Bijan is a stock witness of the police and even though he has been declared hostile, because he changed the whole incident, he has been believed for accepting the presence of this petitioner. Proceedings under section 193 Cr. PC were ordered to be taken against this witness by the trial court. Another fact which has been brought to my notice is that the police had not presented a challan against this petitioner but cognizance was taken by the Magistrate. For making a ground for interference in a revision it has been contended that the defence evidence in the case has not been considered at all and these witnesses are residents of the place where the incident is alleged to have taken place and they have denied any such incident. 3. For making a ground for interference in a revision it has been contended that the defence evidence in the case has not been considered at all and these witnesses are residents of the place where the incident is alleged to have taken place and they have denied any such incident. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the case of the prosecution and contended that the petitioner was present and was a member of the unlawful assembly and he was liable for the act of the others as well as of his own. 4. The main witnesses against the accused are said to be going to court for purposes of giving evidence but they hove not been able to give the particulars of the case. Nothing has been shown as to what was the association of this petitioner with all the other a caused and why he would join them for purposes of giving beating. If other accused were having any motive for beating the complainant then unless it is shown that this petitioner was also interested in the same, it cannot be attributed to him also. Merely because, a person has received injuries and he has name six persons as assailants, it would not become a true case against all of them. It should be shown that the presence of all the accused was either in the normal course or they had planned to be together. The trend in the cross-examination also suggests that there was some dispute about Bhagirath having some relationship with the wife of Dungar and Bhagirath had applied for a search warrant for her recovery. This circumstances points towards Dungar and his brothers and not towards this petitioner. Considering the circumstances as a whole, it can be said that the presence of this petitioner at the time of the incident becomes highly doubtful. His conviction on the basis of statement of Bhagirath who had a grudge against him and on the basis of the statement of the hostile witness PW 3 Vijan cannot be maintained. This petition is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted of the offences under sections 147, 323 and 325/149 IPC.Revision Accepted. *******