S. I. JAFRI, J. ( 1 ) STATE of U. P. has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 16th May 1976 passed by Sri R. P. Guptil, IV Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit acquitting the respondents Annoo, alias Mohd. Ullah and Puttan, Co-accused Babu was also tried along with the respondents Annoo and Putten and he was also acquitted along with them but before filing of the Government Appeal Babu not with natural death. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 18. 12. 1974 Tika Ram (P. W. 5 ). Sewa Ram and Sohan Lal, Students of Islamia College, Pilibhit, were going on foot to take mid-term examination in their College and when they reached near the residence of District Judge at about 9 or 9. 15 A. M. two persons came on a cycle and ,struck against Sohan Lal and when the students protested the persons who came on cycle gave them beating with Chappals. Two persons on Rickshw who also happened to come at time threatened the students that they would not be permitted to go further from the crossing of Naktadana. Being frightened, the aforesaid three students reached their College in a Rickshaw and took their examination and came out at about 12 noon. At that time Ram Kumar deceased met them and enquired about the matter as he had noticed dirt on the clothes of the aforesaid three students. The students narrated the whole occurrence to him. Ram Kumar asked them to accompany him saying that he would get the matter compromised if he knew the assailants from before. Virendra Kumar (C. W. 1) also accompanied Ram Kumar and the aforesaid students, and they left for Kamelley Halvai Ka Chauraha and from near the Tahsil Ram Kumar also took Han Shanker (P. W. 3) with him. Ram Kumar Han Shanker were in a Rickshaw and the other three students were on foot, when the party reached near the Qura Garh crossing, the three accused i. e. Annoo, Puttan and Babu along with Suleman met them. Annoo told Suleman that those were the boys who had quarrelled with them in the morning and thereupon Suleman had asked his companions to kill them. The accused Babu and Puttan were armed with knives while Annoo had lathi with him. Annoo told Suleman that those were the boys who had quarrelled with them in the morning and thereupon Suleman had asked his companions to kill them. The accused Babu and Puttan were armed with knives while Annoo had lathi with him. ( 3 ) TIKA Ram Sewa Ram and Sohan Lal who quarrelled with them on the moving had run away but the accused Babu, Puttan and Annoo assaulted Ram Kumar, Han Shanker and Virendra Kumar with knives and lathi and caused them injuries. The occurrence was witnessed by Anil Kumar (P. W. 2) Ashok Kumar and Anurag. Constable Tej Pal Singh (P. W. 4) posted at police out post Khakra in those days happened to reach there and the occurrence was also witnessed by him. Accused Babu gave knife blows to Ram Kumar and Virendra Kumar and puttan 0 Han Shanker (P. W. 3) constable Tej Pal Singli caught hold of Annoo with lathi and the remaining three accused had made good their escape from the place of occurrence. ( 4 ) AFTER the occurrence Anil Kumar and others brought the three injured persons to the hospital. Constable Tej Pal Singh also went to the hospital along with the injured. He also took the accused with him to the hospital. In the hospital Anil Kumar (P. W. 2) scribed the report Ex. Ka 2 on the dictation givent by Han Shanker and handed over the same to Tej Pal Singh. Tej Pal Singh constable deposited the report Ex. Ka-2 at the police station at 2. 15 P. M. whereupon Chik report was prepared by the Head Constable and a case was registered uls 307 I. P. C. in the General Diary of the Police Station against the accused including Suleman. ( 5 ) DR. B. Narain examined the injuries of Ram Kumar at 1. 30 P. M. on 18. 12. 1974. Ram Kumar deceased had one stab wound 1. 5 cm x 5 cm x depth not measured, obliquely placed on the right side back of Chest 8 cm. below the scapula tailing down ward margin clean cut. ( 6 ) IN the opinion of doctor the injury was caused with some sharp, edged weapon and was kept under observation. Han Shanker injured was examined by Dr. B. Narain at 1. 35 P. M. tie had the following injuries: -1. Stabbed wound 2. below the scapula tailing down ward margin clean cut. ( 6 ) IN the opinion of doctor the injury was caused with some sharp, edged weapon and was kept under observation. Han Shanker injured was examined by Dr. B. Narain at 1. 35 P. M. tie had the following injuries: -1. Stabbed wound 2. 5 cm x. 5cm x 4 cm obliquely placed on the outer side of right thigh upper third margins clean cut tailing down ward. 2. Incised wound 2 cm x. 5 cm outer side of the right foot. 3. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm x. 5 cm outer and middle of the head. 4. Abrasion 2. 5 cm. x. 5 cm infront and middle of left leg. 5. Abrasion 2 cm. x 1 cm on outer and middle of left forearm. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the opinion of the doctor injuries nos. 1 and 2 were caused with some sharp edged pointed weapon like knife. Injury no. 3 was caused with lathi and injuries nos. 4 and 5 with friction. ( 8 ) VIRENDRA Kumar Gangwar (P. W. 1) was also examined by Dr. B. Narain at 1. 45 P. M. He had one stabbed wound 2. 5 cm x. 5 cm x paritorial cavity deep on right side lower part. Tailing downwards. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the opinion of the doctor the injury was caused by some sharp edged weapon like knife. ( 10 ) RAM Kumar succumbed, to his injuries in the hospital the same day and the autopsy on the dead body of Ram Kumar was conducted by Dr. G. C. Agarwal at 10. 30 AM. on 19. 12. 1974. The doctor found one ante-mortem injury on his dead body. It was stitched 5 cm long right side back of chest, 8 cm. below the lower edge of scapula. On removing the stitches margins were found clean cut, and the injury was chest cavity deep. On internal examination there was an incised wound in the 8th inter dorspal space just below the above mentioned injury pleura was ruptured. The right lung was ruptured and had collapsed. ( 11 ) ACCORDING to the opinion of the doctor the death was caused by shock and haemorrhage and injury to the right lung. On internal examination there was an incised wound in the 8th inter dorspal space just below the above mentioned injury pleura was ruptured. The right lung was ruptured and had collapsed. ( 11 ) ACCORDING to the opinion of the doctor the death was caused by shock and haemorrhage and injury to the right lung. ( 12 ) THE Dying declaration of Han Shanker and Virendra Kumar injuries was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Sri Pritam Singh (C. W. 2) on 18. 12. 1974 at 5. 10 P. M. which are Exts. C-i and C-2. ( 13 ) THE case was investigated by M. K. Misra (P. W. 10) S. C. Kotwali Pilibhit who recorded the Statement of witness inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ex. Ka-14 on 10. 1. 1975, the investigation of the case was taken up by the C. I. D. and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted in the court. ( 14 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and stated that they were falsely implicated on account of enmity. They examined two witnesses in defence. They are Sarvesh Kumar Misra (D. W. 1) and V. K. Sarin (D. W. 2 ). ( 15 ) WE have carefully examined the findings of acquittal arrived at by the trial Court and we are in complete agreement with the Sessions Judge. It is no doubt true that the injured witnesses were produced in the case but on this score only the witnesses cannot be relied upon. It cannot be taken for granted that injured witnesses shall always speak the truth. ( 16 ) THE prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in all and out of them Anil Kumar (P. W. 2) Han Shanker (P. W. 3), constable Tej Pal Singh (P. W. 4) and Tika Ram (P. W. 5) are the witnesses of the occurrence. Another injured Virncdni Kumar Gangwar was examined as C. W.-1. ( 17 ) THE Trail Court has rightly held than he theory mentioned in the F. I. R. that Ram Kumar and others were going to their teacher for reading prior to the occurrence is not probable and it has thus made the prosecution case doubtful. According to the F. I. R. the three students, vis. ( 17 ) THE Trail Court has rightly held than he theory mentioned in the F. I. R. that Ram Kumar and others were going to their teacher for reading prior to the occurrence is not probable and it has thus made the prosecution case doubtful. According to the F. I. R. the three students, vis. , Ram Kumar Virendra Kumar and Han Shanker were going to their teacher for reading and when they reached the crossing of Kamalley Halvai, the above mentioned accused persons surrounded them and at the instigation of Suleman accused they cause injuries to them. Han Shanker has further mentioned in the F. I. R. that he had a quarrel with the accused Annoo earlier and he had threatened him to see him on the crossing. When Had Shanker was cross-examined about this previous quarrel Annoo accused, he stated that he had a quarrel with Annoo previously about the fare of rickshaw. According to him Annoo accused is a rickshaw puller but he stated that there was enmity with Annoo but Han Shanker did not even told about this enmity either to the Investigating Officer or in the Dying declaration as it had become an old thing and there was no ill will about it. Under the circumstance, it is difficult to understand as to why the three accused persons had surrounded the students and caused them injuries when they were simply going to their Teacher. However, it is very significant to note that there is no mention in the F. I. R. to the fact that Tika Ram and others the other set of students had a quarrel with some persons near the residence of the District Judge in the morning on the day of the occurrence and Tika Ram and others narrated that incident to the other set of students, namely, Ram Kumar and others-whereupon Ram Kumar and others went to the crossing of Kamalley in order to get the matter compromised. In fact there is no mention of the names of Tika Ram and others at all in the F. I. R. or in the Dying Declaration under the circumstance, we hold that the theory mentioned in the F. I. R. that Ram Kumar and others were going to the Teacher for reading prior to the occurrence is not probable and as such not believable. ( 18 ) VIRENDRA Kumar (C. W. 1) had admitted in cross-examination that on the date of occurrence he had to take his examination in Economics in the and meeting from 1 P. m. , to 4 P. M. If he had to take examination at 1 P. M. i. e. at the time of the occurrence, he would have been in the Examination Hall than he was going to his teacher to learn. Virendra Kumar in cross-examination has also admitted that he did not appear in that paper that pay because he was going to get the dispute of his colleagues Tika Ram and others with the accused persons compromised. This also shows that the theory of going to the teacher mentioned in the F. I. R. was not at all a fact and the same was also not mentioned in the dying Declarations Ex. C-i and C-2. Even this fact Was also not stated before the Investigating Officer that they were going to Teacher to learn. Under the circumstance, the earlier part of the prosecution case is shrounded with mystry. It may further be noted that Han Shanker and Virendra Kumar have also mentioned now facts in the Dying Declaration which has further complicated the matter. Han Shanker stated that when they reached the crossing of Kamelley, they found some persons were quarreling and the three accused persons were amongst them and the fourth person Suleman was instigating them. Similarly Virendra Kumar stated that when they reached there they found two or three boys were quarreling and some persons had gathered there and when their rickshaw reached there, they were assaulted. Under the circumstance, the prosecution case has become much suspicious with regard to the origin of fight. ( 19 ) ANOTHER circumstance which has created a lot of suspicious about the prosecution version is that Tika Ram and others who had a quarrel with some persons near the residence of the District Judge in the morning were not assaulted by the accused but on the other hand Ram Kumar and others who were not connected with the morning incident were assaulted. It is also significant to note that Han Shanker (P. W. 3) stated before the C. I. D. that the accused Annoo gave lathi blow to Tika Ram when Ram Kumar and others protested, the accused persons began to beat them. It is also significant to note that Han Shanker (P. W. 3) stated before the C. I. D. that the accused Annoo gave lathi blow to Tika Ram when Ram Kumar and others protested, the accused persons began to beat them. Under the circumstance, the manner of assault has also become doubtful. Tika Ram (P. W. 5) had never stated before the Court that on his being assaulted by Annoo with lathi, Ram Kumar and others protested whereupon they were beaten. ( 20 ) ANOTHER circumstance which also made the prosecution case further suspicious is that Virendra Kumar made statement before the Court that Babu and Pattan were armed with knives and Annoo with lathi. Babu had caused injuries with knife to Ram Kumar and Virendra Kumar while puttan gave him two blows with knive and Annoo one blow with lathi, But in the dying Declaration Han Shanker has stated that the accused Babu had a lathi and he gave him three blows with lathi and thereafter one of the accused persons gave him blows with knife, also stated that he did not know the name of the person who had given him the knife blows. He also stated that on account of injuries, he had fallen unconscious and after regaining consciousness immediately ran towards the crossing and the accused Babu again gave him a lathi blow where upon he had rushed into the shop of some Vaidh. These two statements are quite contradictory to each other. Virendra Kumar (C. W. 1) stated in his Dying Declaration that Some one from among the accused gave him two blows with lathi which hit him on his hand and leg, though this fact was not stated before the Court. Moreover, the injury report does not show that Virendra Kumar had received any lathi injury. In view of the variance in the Statement as discussed above, the prosecution case has become further suspicious with regard to the manner of assault and the weapon assigned to the three accused. ( 21 ) IT is further to be noted that even the place of occurrence as mentioned in the F. I. R. is also contradictory. According to the F. I. R. Ram Kumar, Han Shanker and Virender were assaulted as soon as they reached the crossing of Kamalley by the three accused. ( 21 ) IT is further to be noted that even the place of occurrence as mentioned in the F. I. R. is also contradictory. According to the F. I. R. Ram Kumar, Han Shanker and Virender were assaulted as soon as they reached the crossing of Kamalley by the three accused. However, before the Court, the prosecution witnesses stated that when they reached near Kura Ghar the accused persons met them and caused them injuries there. Anil Kumar (P. W. 2) has admitted that this kura ghar is situated about 40 to 50 paces away from the aforesaid crossing, where Han Shanker (P. W. 3) in his dying Declaration stated that the occurrence took place near JHOOLA which is still 3s to 40 paces away from Kura Garh. Under the circumstance, the actual place of occurrence is highly contradictory and suspicious. It is, thus, difficult to determine the actual place of occurrence. ( 22 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, the name of accused Annoo is Mohd. Ullah but Annoo is a brother of Mohd. Ullah, The defence has proved remand applications Exs Kha - 5 to Kha 8 showing that the remand was taken on each date in the name of Mohd. Ullah only. Though Ram Kumar and Han Shanker have stated that they know the accused persons from before but they admitted that they did not know parentage of the accused and they never saw their houses. Under the circumstance, the identity of the accused also does not appear to have been satisfactorily established by the prosecution. ( 23 ) EVEN the arrest of the accused Annoo on the spot is highly doubtful. Tej Pal Singh, constable (P. W. 4) asserted to have arrested accused Annoo on the spot at about 1 P. M. Tej Pal Singh pad lodged the accused at 2. 15 P. M. at police station Kotwali situated at about one mile from the place of occurrence. He has stated that while fight was going on he had reached the place of occurrence and had arrested Annoo and, thereafter, he went to the Hospital along with the injured and after the First Information Report was prepared at the dictation of one of the injured in he hospital, he had brought the accused Annoo to Kotwali along with the written F. I. R. This assertion of Tej Pal Singh is subject to great doubts. If actually Tej Pal Singh had arrested Annoo accused on the spot, he would have brought his direct to the Kotwali and not to the hospital along with he injured and had waited there for preparation of the F. I. R. There is no mention in the injury report of three injured that Tej Pal Singh had produced them before the doctor. The prosecution has also not proved the General Diary Entry showing that Tej Pal Singh had left the police out post Khakra for petrolling prior to the occurrence towards the place of occurrence. Under the circumstance, the arrest of Annoo accused on the spot by Tej Pal Singh constable is highly doubtful. Likewise the preparation and lodging of the F. I. R. have also become doubtful as alleged by the prosecution. It is significant to note that there is no mention of time of lodging of the F. I. R. in the inquest report in the column meant for mentioning the time of lodging of the F. I. R. at the police station. ( 24 ) ANOTHER circumstance which has given a severe blow to the prosecution case is that Han Shanker (P. W. 3) stated in his Dying Declaration (Ext. C-1) before the Magistrate that among the assailants there were 5 or 6 persons besides the accused whom he can identify by face only as he did know their names. Under the circumstance it is very difficult to hold that the respondents were the persons who had caused the injuries to Rani Kumar, Han Shanker and Virendra Kumar. ( 25 ) IN this case, prosecution has no doubt examined injured witnesses in Support of its case but injury on the person of a witness is no guarantee that the witness shall always speak the truth. In this case, all the witnesses examined are highly interested. Under the circumstance, it is not safe to place reliance on the testimony of injured witnesses without in dependant corroboration which is lacking in this case. Anil Kumar (P. W. 2) has submitted that Ravindra Kumar lives in his Mohalla and he and Ram Kumar and some P. Ws. are Kayasth by casts. ( 26 ) THE presence of Anil Kumar on the spot is also subject to great doubts. He stated that he was coming to the flour mill of Azmat for wheat grinding. Anil Kumar (P. W. 2) has submitted that Ravindra Kumar lives in his Mohalla and he and Ram Kumar and some P. Ws. are Kayasth by casts. ( 26 ) THE presence of Anil Kumar on the spot is also subject to great doubts. He stated that he was coming to the flour mill of Azmat for wheat grinding. In cross-examination he admitted that there were two such flour mills quite to the neighbourhood of his house. Under the circumstance his reaching at the place of the occurrence is highly doubtful. However, Sarvesh Kumar Misra (D. W. 1) Assistant Teacher had proved from the Attendance Register of the School that on 18. 12. 1974 Anil Kumar was present in the College in both the meetings. The College hours were from 10 A. M. to 4 P. M. and the attendance in the first meeting was taken at to A. M. while in the lind meeting al 1. 10 P. M. He further stated that in those days Mid-Sessional Examinations were taking place and the examination in the first meeting were from 10 A. M. to 12 noon and the second meeting examinations were from 1. P. M. to 3. 30 P. M. Attendance were taken in both the meetings. Under the circumstance if Anil Kumar had his examination in the first meeting which would have been over at 12 noon or 12. 30 P. M. , it is not at all expected that after coming to his house after finishing of the examination he would atonce rush to the flour Mill of Azmat for grinding the flour. Under the circumstance Anil Kumars presence at the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful. ( 27 ) AFTER considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court deserves to be affirmed. ( 28 ) IN the result, the appeal preferred by the State is dismissed and the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in favour of the respondents is affirmed. The respondents are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. Appeal dismissed.