Judgment A.M.AHMADI,J. (1) THESE two appeals one by the original complainant and other by the State of Haryana are directed against the judgment of acquittal recorded by the High court on 23/05/1985. The brief facts of the case are as under : THE deceased Narain Dass and the accused Ram Ditta own parcels of land in Garden Society Fields, about 4 kms. from Hansi Town. The accused Ram Ditta wanted a passage through the land of the deceased. Five or six days prior to the occurrence Public Witness 6 0m Prakash was requested to act as an arbitrator in the dispute along with one Maher Chand. (2) ON the night intervening August 15/16, 1983, Narain Dass left for his field at about 11.00 p.m. to take his turn of water at about 1.30 a.m. His turn was to commence at 1.30 a.m. and last up to 3.30 a.m. The prosecution case is that as the deceased Narain Dass did not return to his residence by about 4.15 a.m. to 4.30 a.m., his son Public Witness 4 Davinder Kumar and his father Public Witness 5 Sahdu Ram went in search of him. When they neared the field they saw the accused Ram Ditta armed with a lathi and his son accused Makhan Lal armed with a jaily assaulting the deceased. These two witnesses tried to save the deceased but were threatened by the two assailants. After the deceased fell down the accused persons lifted him and carried him to their field. Public Witness 4 and Public Witness 5 thereafter went to Sadar Hansi Police Station where the latter lodged a complaint at about 11.30 a.m. (3) THE case rested mainly on the evidence of Public Witness 4 andPW 5. It was contended that the High court committed an error in refusing to rely on the direct testimony of these two witnesses. The High court did not rely on their evidence principally for two reasons viz. (i) it was a curious coin- cidence that both the eye-witnesses reached the place of occurrence exactly at the time of the assault and (ii) the statement of Public Witness 4 that the accused Makhan Lal had given four or five thrust blows with the jaily was not consistent with the medical evidence. We will examine if the High CourtS approach is correct. We will examine if the High CourtS approach is correct. (4) IT must be remembered that the deceased had gone to the field to take his turn of water from 1.30 a.m. to 3.30 a.m. Public Witness 4 and Public Witness 5 want us to believe that they were waiting for the deceased to return home and as he did not return by about 4.15 or 4.30 a.m. they felt anxious and went in search of him. Ordinarily Public Witness 4 and Public Witness 5 would be at their residence at that hour. However, they claim to be waiting for the deceased and when he did not return they went in search of him and reached the place of occurrence at 6.00 a.m. It was indeed a curious coincidence that both of them were present exactly at the time when. the so-called assault took place. They are both interested and chance witnesses. Their evidence must be examined with care. (5) IN the first place the High court points out that there is no good reason shown for the deceased to remain in the field from 4.30 a.m. onwards till the assault at 6.00 a.m. If the accused wanted to kill him they would have expected to find the deceased in the field from 1.30 a.m. to 3.30 a.m. and not at 6.00 a.m. when ordinarily even according to the prosecution he would have returned home. Even according to Public Witness 4 and PW 5 they became anxious as he did not return home till 5.00 a.m. Therefore the accused would not lie in wait for him at 6.00 a.m. Next according to Public Witness 5 accused Makhan Lal used the jaily prongwise four or five times. If that statement is correct he would expect punctured wounds with corresponding cut marks on the clothes. The evidence of Public Witness 3 DI Menon, however, shows that there was no such punctured wound and cut mark on the clothes of the deceased. In fact all the wounds are possible by a hard and blunt weapOn only. The High court was, therefore, justified in observing that the evidence of Public Witness 5 was not consistent with medical evidence. That makes the presence of Public Witness 5 doubtful. Since both PW 4 and Public Witness 5 claim to have gone to the place of occurrence together, it makes the presence of both of them doubtful. The High court was, therefore, justified in observing that the evidence of Public Witness 5 was not consistent with medical evidence. That makes the presence of Public Witness 5 doubtful. Since both PW 4 and Public Witness 5 claim to have gone to the place of occurrence together, it makes the presence of both of them doubtful. In these circumstances the High court was justified in not placing implicit reliance on the testimony of the two interested witnesses and in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused persons. (6) FOR the above reasons we see no reason to interfere with the High CourtS order. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. Bail bonds are can- celled.