JUDGMENT Surya Prasad, J. - Criminal Appeal No. 968 of 1979 Kishore and others v. State has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19.3.79 passed by the then VI Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur convicting and sentencing the accused - appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. for five year rigorous imprisonment each and a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default of payment of fine each for further three months rigorous imprisonment in Session Trial No. A 425 of 1976 State v. Kishore and 3 others. The Criminal Appeal No. 1746 of 1982. Smt. Jitni v. Ramji and others has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19.3.79 passed by the aforesaid VI Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the accused-respondents under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149, I.P.C. in Session Trial No. A 228 of 1976 State v. Ramji and 15 others. These two Sessions Trials are based on two cross versions and relate to one and the same episode. Therefore these two criminal appeals have been connected with each other for disposal. 2. The facts of Sessions Trial No. A 485 of 1976 State v. Kishore and others, briefly stated are that Kishore is son of Bankey who is son of Bisheshwar resident of Pipraich, Police Station Pipraich, District Gorakhpur, Duber Lal is son of Bankey who is son of Dhondha resident of Chhota Kajipur, District Gorakhpur, Baijnath is son of the sister of Ram Autar and Ram Awadh. Chitharoo is their sisters's husband. The houses of Kishore and Ram Autar are adjacent to each other with a Gali intervening them. It is alleged that Kishore and others wanted to make encroachment upon the land of Ram Autar by constructing a house thereon. Ram Autar did not allow them to make any construction. A panchayat was consequently held in that connection and Kishore and others had to leave the land measuring three cubits, whereupon Kishore and other members of his family bore grudge and expressed that they would take revenge against Ram Autar. Kishore had been after Ram Autar since then. It is further alleged that on 24.5.77 Baijnath, his mother's sister's husband (Mausa) Chithroo, Ram Autar and Ram Awadh were going to the Pipraich Railway Station to see his (Baijnath's) mother's sister (Mausi) off. As soon as they reached in front of the house of Dr. Kishore had been after Ram Autar since then. It is further alleged that on 24.5.77 Baijnath, his mother's sister's husband (Mausa) Chithroo, Ram Autar and Ram Awadh were going to the Pipraich Railway Station to see his (Baijnath's) mother's sister (Mausi) off. As soon as they reached in front of the house of Dr. Gulab at about 2.30 p.m., Kishore son of Bankey, Bankey son of Bisheshwar, Doober son of Bankey and Bankey son of Dhondh happened to come there while abusini Ram Autar and shouting that Ram Autar should not be allowed to run away and that he should be killed. In the mean time Bankey son of Dhondha and Doobar caught hold of Ram Autar and Kishore and Bankey son of Bisheshwar started giving knife blows to him. Baijnath and others raised alarm, hearing which Chandra Mani Singh son of Sarju Singh, Madan and Tafazzul resident of. Pipraich and many others came there. Ram Autar fell down. In the mean time Bankey wielded his knife which instead of causing injuries to Ram Autar, hit Doobar and caused injury to him on his chest. Thereafter the assailants ran away thinking that Ram Autar died. The above named witnesses saw the assailants assaulting Ram Autar in the moon light as well as in the flash light of their torches. Ram Autar was sent to the hospital. It is further alleged that the above named persons chased the assailants and in the process of chasing them, a constable clerk, a constable Ram Naresh Singh, Ram Keval Yadav and Vishwanath happened to come there. With the help of these persons Kishore and Bankey were surrounded and apprehended near railway depo. A blood stained knife and a handle of a knife were recovered from the possession of Kishore and Bankey respectively. They were taken to the Police Station, Pipraich along with the recovered articles Baijnath made a report to the police station and on that basis a case was ultimately registered against the accused-appellants Kishore and others. 3. Dr. P.N. Singh P.W. 3 examined Ram Autar and found the following injuries on his person: 1. Incised wound 1" x " x depth under observation on left side chest outer aspect, near the base. 2. Incised wound 1 " x " x bone on the left side of lower jaw. 3. 3. Dr. P.N. Singh P.W. 3 examined Ram Autar and found the following injuries on his person: 1. Incised wound 1" x " x depth under observation on left side chest outer aspect, near the base. 2. Incised wound 1 " x " x bone on the left side of lower jaw. 3. Multiple abrasions in an area of 2" x 1" on the front of neck and upper chest. 4. Incised wound 1" x " x scalp deep on middle of head, 5" above the left ear. 4. Doobar Lal was also taken to the hospital by the police with Ram Autar injured. He was also medically examined by Dr. P.N. Singh P.W.3 who found the following injuries on his person: 1. Incised wound " x " x depth under observation on the chest. 2. Abrassion " x 1" on right malar region. 5. Bankey son of Bisheshwar got himself medically examined by Dr. N. Swarup, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Gorakhthur on 26.5.75 at 3.45 p.m. its injury report was proved by the said doctor in the cross case Session Trial No. A 228 of 1976. Kishore's mother Smt. Jitni got herself medically examined by the said Dr. N. Swarup who proved her injury report in the said cross case. 6. Kishore was medically examined by the Medical Officer in the Sadar Lockup at Gorakhpur at 5.40 p.m. Nineteen injuries were found on his person as is clear from his injury report Ex. Kha-16. The accused Bankey son of Dhondha was also radically examined by the Medical Officer in the Sadar Lock-up at Gorakhpur. His injury report is Ex. Kha-17 which shows that there were six injuries on his person. 7. Smt. Jitni moved an application containing the counter version of the occurrence before the District Magistrate on 27.5.75. Ex. Kha 14 is the certified copy of the said application in the cross case (Session Trial No. A 228 of 1976). A copy of that application was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur who endorsed the same to the Station Officer, Police Station Pipraich. A case was ultimately registered on that basis. After completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against Ram Ji and others. 8. A copy of that application was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur who endorsed the same to the Station Officer, Police Station Pipraich. A case was ultimately registered on that basis. After completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against Ram Ji and others. 8. The prosecution in Session Trial No. 485 of 1976 examined Baijnath P.W. 2, Ram Autar P.W. 4 and Chandra Mani Singh P.W. 5 as eye witnesses and relied upon certain documents in support of its case. The other witnesses are more or less formal ones. 9. The accused-appellants Kishore and others pleaded not guilty. They have denied the prosecution version in respect of the incident. They have stated that they have been falsely implicated because of their cross case. The accused Kishore has set up a counter case in his statement. He has stated that he and others were attacked by Ram Autar and others and that Ram Awadh dealt a knife blow at the accused Doobar. He has further stated that while Ram Awadh was aiming the other blow at him Doobar), Doobar's father Bankey son of Dhondha rescued him by snatching the knife from his (Ram Awadh's) hands. Ram Awadh tried to snatch the knife from the accused Bankey son of Dhondha and consequently he received injuries in the process of snatching of the knife. Kishore has also stated that Ram Autar and others were being tried in the cross case. The accused Bankey son of Dhondha had denied that he and Kishore were arrested on the spot after being beaten and that the knife and the knife handle were recovered from their possession. This plea is that he had gone to the police station to lodge the report and that he and Kishore were locked up there by the police. He has further stated that he had received injuries. He has also stated that he had gone to Pipraich to extend invitation of marriage of his youngest son. The accused Doobar Lal has stated that he, his father, Kishore and his father were beaten and injured by Baijnath and others who were being prosecuted for the same. The accused Bankey son of Bisheshwar has stated that the witnesses are under the influence of the police. He has also stated that he is an injured witness in the cross case. 10. The accused Bankey son of Bisheshwar has stated that the witnesses are under the influence of the police. He has also stated that he is an injured witness in the cross case. 10. The prosecution in Session Trial No. A 228 of 1976 State v. Ramji and others, examined Smt. Jitni P.W. 1, Bansha. P.W. 5, Doobar P.W. 6 and Kishore P.W. 7 as eye witnesses and relied upon certain documents in support of its case. The other witnesses are more or less formal ones. 11. The accused pleaded not guilty. They have stated that all the allegations levelled against them in connection with the incident are wrong and incorrect. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the evidence on record, the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in Session Trial No. A 426 of 1976 State v. Kishore and others vide his impugned judgment and order and acquitted the accused in Session Trial No. A 228 of 1976 State v. Ramji and others vide his judgments and order referred, to earlier. Aggrieved, the accused-appellants Kishore and others preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 968 of 1979 and the complainant Smt. Jitni preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 1746 of 1982 against the same. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. 14. There is nothing in the First Information Report to indicate that Baijnath's sister was also accompanying him and others. But he has introduced her for the first time in his statement on oath in the court. It is alleged that all the accused while hurling abuses had come to the place of occurrence. But Baijnath had not corroborated it in his statement on oath. The First Information Report does not indicate the mode and manner in which Ram Autar was caught hold of by Bankey son of Dhondha and Doobr. Baijnath has made improvement in this respect in his statement. From the First Information Report it is clear that Ram Autar fell down having received injuries. But he has stated that in that process Doobar also received injury. From the First Information Report it appears that Baijnath and others had surrounded and apprehended Bankey and Kishore. But he has stated on oath in the court that the policemen had apprehended them. But he has stated that in that process Doobar also received injury. From the First Information Report it appears that Baijnath and others had surrounded and apprehended Bankey and Kishore. But he has stated on oath in the court that the policemen had apprehended them. He has further stated that the accused had not assaulted anyone else than Ram Autar. Neither he nor any one else of his party was holding Lathi Danda or knife at the time of incident. 15. In view of what has been observed' above, it is evidently clear that Baijnath has made improvements over what has been mentioned in the First Information Report and therefore, his statement does not inspire confidence. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants to this effect appears to be correct. 16. Baijnath P.W. 2 has categorically stated in the cross-examination that he and others had not beaten Kishore and that it is the policemen who had beaten him while apprehending him. Beer Bahadur Pandey P.W. 6 is a constable. He is said to be one of those who are alleged to have apprehended Kishore and Bankey sons of Dhondha. But he has not stated even a word that he and others had apprehended them by surrounding and beating them. Kishore and Bankey sons of Dhondha had admittedly received as many as 19 and 6 injuries respectively. But there is no evidence to explain how these injuries were caused to them. Similarly there is no convincing evidence to establish how Dhondha actually received injures. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused appellants that the prosecution has not come with clean hands, appears to be correct. 17. The prosecution case relating to Session Trial No.A 228 of 1976 State v. Ram a and 15 others cannot also be believed, firstly because Smt. Jitni P.W. 1, Doobar Lal P.W. 6 and Kishore P.W. 7 have given their inconsistent statements about the names and number of the accused in the said case, secondly because there' is doubt about the participation of the ladies in the Marpeet, thirdly because s the alleged First Information Report is inordinately delayed and fourthly because the statements of the eye witnesses, who are highly interested, if carefully scrutinised, do not inspire confidence. The learned VI Additional Sessions Judge has considered the pros and cons of the case. 18. The learned VI Additional Sessions Judge has considered the pros and cons of the case. 18. In view of all this, there does not appear any scope to interfere with his judgment and order in the above Sessions Trial No. A 228 of 1976 State v. Ramji and others. 19. In the result the Criminal Appeal No. 968 of 1979 Kishore and others is allowed. The impugned judgment and order are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. The Criminal Appeal No. 1746 of 1982 Smt. Jitni v. Ramji and others is dismissed. The acquittal of the accused persons therein is maintained.