JUDGMENT 1. - Five accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City vide his judgment dated 27-8-83, as under:- Raju : U/s. 148 IPC-6 month's RI U/s. 324/149 IPC-3 month's RI U/s. 323/149 IPC-one month's SI Muneem : U/s. 147 IPC-3 month's RI U/s. 148 IPC-six month's RI U/s. 324/149 IPC-3 month's RI U/s. 323/149 IPC-one month's SI Harmukh : U/s. 147 IPC-3 month's RI U/s. 148 IPC-6 month's RI U/s. 324/149 IPC-3 month's RI U/s. 323 IPC-one month's SI Kishan & Kalyan : U/s. 147 IPC-3 month's RI U/s. 324/149 IPC-3 month's RI U/s. 324/149 IPC-3 month's RI U/s. 323 IPC-one month's SI 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that a report was lodged on 28-2-82 before Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Kemari Panchayat Samiti Nadoli district Sawai Madhopur wherein it was alleged that on 25-2-82 at 6.00 p.m. when he was lying on a cot at his house suddenly Kishan s/o Sheoram, Harmukh s/o Kalyan, Raju s/o Kishan, Kalyan s/o Sheoram and Muneem s/o Kalyan entered his house and attacked him. Raju fired a muzzle loaded gun as a result of which smoke entered his eyes and he sustained injuries on the face and Harmukh gave a Gandasi blow on his hand an Muneem on leg. According to him, Kishan aimed 12 bore gun towards him but he did not fire. Sarpanch forwarded this report to S.H.O., Police Station Garmora on 1-3-82 where the case was registered for offences under Sections 147, 323 and 324 IPC. An injury report was also produced, which was taken down by Medical Officer Incharge, primary Health Centre, Mahaveerji, who found following injuries on the person of Mahadeva:- "1. Incised wound 3" x 1/2" x "1/2 on the left palm near base of left thumb starting from lateral aspect of palm in between thumb and index finger. 2. There was one abrasion about x 1/2" x 1/2" on the left thigh 5" above the left knee joint. 3. There were multiple burn marks over both eyelids and cornea. 4. There were multiple burn marks spread about in 3" x 2" area on the left thigh." 3. After completing investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against all the five accused-appellants, who were committed to court of sessions. Charges for offence under Sections 147, 148, 307, 307/149, 324, 324/149, 323 and 323/149 IPC were levelled against them. 4. 4. There were multiple burn marks spread about in 3" x 2" area on the left thigh." 3. After completing investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against all the five accused-appellants, who were committed to court of sessions. Charges for offence under Sections 147, 148, 307, 307/149, 324, 324/149, 323 and 323/149 IPC were levelled against them. 4. Prosecution examined five witnesses in support of its case. Learned trial Court, after assessing the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as indicated above against which this appeal has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused-appellants for various reasons. His first contention is that the FIR is inordinately delayed in as much as the incident took place on 25-2-82 and the report was lodged after four days i.e. on 28-2-82 and forwarded to SHO, PS Garmora on 1-3-82. His submission further is that there is no independent witness in the case and there is past enmity between the parties. It is submitted that no muzzle loaded gun has been recovered which might have been used. Learned counsel submits that no clothes have been produced to show that there were either turn due to there were marks of firing on them. It is submitted that the Investigating Officers statements itself create doubt upon the genuineness of the prosecution story. 6. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court and submits that the evidence produced in the case is sufficient to bring home the offence against the accused. 7. I have gone through the entire record. 8. It may be stated at the out set that in this case, no independent witness has been examined to prove the invident. Even the Sarpanch, to whom the report was lodged by Mahadeva (P.W. 3), has not been produced in the Court. The investigation of this case has been done in a very slip short manner. No effort has been made even to make a search of the house of the accused Raju, as admitted by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 5) Inderraj Singh himself. The two witnessed examined in the case are Mahadeva injured himself, and Smt. Dakha, who is the mother of Mahadeva. According to Mahadeva (P.W. 3) there is a past enmity between the families and the litigation is also going on. The two witnessed examined in the case are Mahadeva injured himself, and Smt. Dakha, who is the mother of Mahadeva. According to Mahadeva (P.W. 3) there is a past enmity between the families and the litigation is also going on. He has admitted that against him a case under Sec. 307 IPC is pending in the Court of Sessions. He has also admitted that there are two cases under Sec. 110. Cr. P. against him and he had been arrested earlier also. He had denied the ignorance about the fact that he is a history-sheeter. Admittedly, he is a person who has indulged in an incident earlier but did not go to lodge a report when he has gone to the Hospital itself. He neither reported the matter to any police officer of police station nor to the Sarpanch on the date of occurrence. He also did not get himself medically examined anywhere within his own Tehsil. On the contrary, he went to Mahaveerji to obtain a report instead of going to Police Station Garhmora. A perusal of the statement shows that he is not wholly truthful witness. Dakha (P.W. 4) has stated that she also sustained injuries in the incident but there is no medical corroboration to her statement. She does not assign any reason for not going to the Sarpanch or the Secretary. According to her, Mahadeva remained in hospital for 2-3 days, which fact is not corroborated by any record of the hospital. It may, therefore, be stated that neither the injured Mahadeva nor his mother Dakha have come with a wholly truthful story. There may be some truth in what they said. But it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that when a witness start saying lie, it is difficult to find out up to what extent he is lieu unless there is some other circumstantial or direct evidence to circumscribe that. If there are two witnesses and both of them are not wholly truthful and there is no independent corroboration then it is very difficulty to rely on either of them because one tainted witness cannot corroborate the statement of another tainted witness. If there are two witnesses and both of them are not wholly truthful and there is no independent corroboration then it is very difficulty to rely on either of them because one tainted witness cannot corroborate the statement of another tainted witness. As stated above, no gun powder has been found near the place of occurrence or on the walls or on the clothes of the persons who were present at the time of occurrence or on the bed sheet from which he has covered himself, according to his statement. Thus, neither the circumstances, nor the ocular evidence is enough to conclude beyond all manners of reasonable doubt that the story put forth by the complainant is a truthful story so as to maintain the conviction of the accused appellants who are as many as five in number. It may be that a crime is going unpunished but for paucity of cogent, legal and unimpeachible evidence. 9. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that this appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 27-8-83 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City convicting the accused-appellants Raju, Muneem, Harmukh, Kalyan and Kishan, is set aside. The appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them in this case. They are on bail and need not to surrender their bail bonds. *******