K. NARAYAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by Chedi, Buddhu, Sunphal, Banwari, Baburam, Sunder, Pheku, Buddhu, Jagmohan, Shiv Datta, Neur, Marjad, Mahatam and Kali Charan is directed against their conviction and sentence recorded by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur on 2-9-1978 in S. T. No. 11 of 1978. They were convicted under Sections 147,302,149,323/149 and 323/149 I. P. C. and sentenced to various terms including imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE deceased Ram Briksh is said to have been murdered and the charges related to his murder and simple injuries caused to Hira and Moti who happen to be the brother of the deceased. The incident is said to be of about 5 p. m. on 12-51977 in village Karauta, P. S. Maharajganj, District Gorakhpur. A First Information Report of the incident was lodged at the police station at 11a. m. on the next date i. e. 13-5-1977. It appears that till then Ram Briksh had not died and hence the report was one under Sections 147,323/307 both read with Sections 149. The exact time of death of Ram Briksh is not known and even the post mortem report is silent about it. However, the post mortem examination itself seems to have been conducted on 14-5-1977 at 4. 30 p. m. The only visible injury on his person was a haematoma 4 x 4 on scalp in the middle and fracture of both the sides of parietal bones and of both the sides of occipital bones were found as also blood clots were found present inside the bones and there was fracture of the base of the skull. ( 3 ) THE F. I. R. Ext. Ka-9 narrated a peculiar story in the form that the son of deceased and nephew of the informant, namely, Moti had brought his sister-in-law (Sali) to his place in order to attend his wife who was soon to be delivered with a child. This was possibly taken ill by the inlaws of the sister-in-law and on the date of incident all the accused persons came to his house and began to assault Moti, Hira and Ram Briksh with cudgles saying that Ram Briksh should be done to death. During the assault, other persons of the locality reached there and avoided further assault. This was possibly taken ill by the inlaws of the sister-in-law and on the date of incident all the accused persons came to his house and began to assault Moti, Hira and Ram Briksh with cudgles saying that Ram Briksh should be done to death. During the assault, other persons of the locality reached there and avoided further assault. ( 4 ) IN the incident, Hira is said to have received two injuries, namely, abrasions on the right forearm and at the inner side of the left forearm, while Moti received two lacerated wounds on the head and bruise red in the upper part back of the right side. The reports of the medical examination are Exts-ka-3 and Ka-4 and have been proved by (P. W. 4) Dr. Narbada Rao. ( 5 ) THE other evidence lead by the prosecution consisted of (P. W. 5) Jitendra Nath Rai and (P. W. 6)Phool Deo, both constables who had proved the police records and also the fact that Phool Deo had accompanied the deceased in his life time to the hospital and then his dead body to the mortuary. (P. W. 8) Jagdish Prasad Pandey is the investigating Officer. ( 6 ) THE evidence of occurrence was expected in the sttements of (P. W. 1) Moti (P. W. 2) Hira, (P. W. 3)Rama Shankar and (P. W. 7) Adya Prasad Chaturvedi. Out of these (P. W. 3) Rama Shankar and (P. W. 7) Adya Prasad Chaturvedi have not supported the case of the prosecution. We shall deal withtheir evidence later on. ( 7 ) THE Statements of (P. W. 1) Moti and (P. W. 2) Hira seem to be some what half hearted to say the least about it. Kapil Dea who had brought his sister-in-law to his place was the son of Ram Briksh. If there could be anything like ill-will, it could be between Kapil Deo and the husband of the said sister-in-law, namely, Mahatam but Mahatam though being accused is not said to have taken any material part in the incident. In fact the details of the circumstances, in which that sister-in-law was brought, have been shown in the evidence of (P. W. 1) Moti. In fact the details of the circumstances, in which that sister-in-law was brought, have been shown in the evidence of (P. W. 1) Moti. It appears from his statement that she had come from Maika to the place of Kapil Deo for sometime and after delivery of the child she was sent back to her Maika from where she was taken by her-in-laws. All these things had happened before the incident itself. It there was a bad blood on that account, the said sali could not have been taken to the place of in-laws or at least there should have been some hue and cry about it. This so called motive does not obtain. ( 8 ) ABOUT the incident (P. W. 1) Moti had stated that Sunder accused came ahead of all and abused Ram Briksh where upon Ram Briksh protested that they had already brought him down among the relations by calling names and should not abuse and there upon Babu Ram accused is said to have given to cudgel blow on the head of Ram Briksh. This naming of Babu Ram has come for the first time in the statement on oath. Neither he was mentioned in the F. I. R. nor this was mentioned in the statement recorded by the investigating officer. One can understand that an illiterate person under the pressure of unconsciousness of his brother may not be in a position to explain all facts in the F. I. R. but why the investigating Officer would not ask about it? The omission in that statement means in fact that till then the witnesses had not known or had not made up their mind as to who should be named for the single injury. Babu Ram, it is note worthy, is a resident of village. Karauta where the victim and all the witnesses live. No concern has been shown to connect the two groups of the accused. It may be mentioned here that the accused appellants Nos. 1 to 7 are the resident of village Karauta, while the accused appellants Nos. 8 to 14 are residents of village Pakari. Mahatam is the husband of the sali. Why these two groups from two different villages would join hands in assaulting the father of Kapil Deo that is Ram Briksh for a wrong if it was at all there, of Kapil. The evidence is silent about it. 8 to 14 are residents of village Pakari. Mahatam is the husband of the sali. Why these two groups from two different villages would join hands in assaulting the father of Kapil Deo that is Ram Briksh for a wrong if it was at all there, of Kapil. The evidence is silent about it. It is not a fact which could not have been known to the prosecution witnesses. If it was the truth, their silence in this behalf simply suggests that they have nothing to say which could be relied upon. It was also shown in the cross-examination of (P. W. 1) Moti that Sunder accused had informed the people at Pakari that the sali had been sent to Kawahar. If he could be that good, why should he be that bad to join in murder or assault. ( 9 ) IN the statement of (P. W. 2) Hira again Babu Ram was named for the first time as the main assailant and it met the same fate. One more factor has been shown in this form that just after the occurrence both the parties had gone to the place of Shambhu Baba. This aspect was denied by (P. W. 1) Moti but suggestion to him was also in the form that the resident of the same village were implicated in the case at the instance of Shambhu Baba. The statement of these persons on oath, the implication persons on the direction of an influential person of the village could be looked upon with doubt. This aspect coupled with the fact that no effort was made for murder of Ram Briksh, a half hearted F. I. R. was lodged after getting prepared in the way and the delay in the F. I. R. tend to show that some thing else might have been given the shape, in order to avenge against certain persons at the instance of Shambhu Baba or somebody else. Those persons were partly suggested by some body else for some reason and partly manufactured by the witnesses for avenging themselves in support of the occurrence related to Sali. The evidence of (P. W. 3) Rama Shankar and (P. W. 7) Adya Prasad Chaturvedi was expected persons who had seen the occurrence. However, both of them have stated that Chedi and others had not assaulted Hira, Moti and Ram Briksh in their presence. The evidence of (P. W. 3) Rama Shankar and (P. W. 7) Adya Prasad Chaturvedi was expected persons who had seen the occurrence. However, both of them have stated that Chedi and others had not assaulted Hira, Moti and Ram Briksh in their presence. This statement amounts to a denial of occurrence as suggested by the prosecution but the prosecution has contented itself by taking leave to put questions by way of cross-examination and has finished by suggesting to them that they have given a different statement to the investigating Officer. This much action on the part of the prosecution does not lead us any where. The questions put by way of cross - examination were that he had given some different statement to the investigating Officer wherein he had told that Hira, Moti and Ram Briksh were assaulted by Chedi and other accused. He has denied this suggestion. The other suggestion was that he had colluded with the accused and had given false evidence. There was no occasion for him of giving false evidence and any thing that could be suggested to him, would be that he was not giving the correct evidence. ( 10 ) IT will be better to look into the effect of this effort on the part of the State Counsel. Under Section 137 of the Evidence Act, examination of a witness has been divided into three parts, namely, examination-in-chief, Cross-examination and Re-examination and this is also the order in which they are to be carried on. Section 145 of the Evidence Act lays down the procedure when a witness is intended to be disbelieved and contradicted by some previous statements which has been reduced to writing. This Section by itself, is a part of Section 155 of the Evidence Act, where one of the methods of impeaching the credit of a witness is by confronting him with his former statement in consistent with any part of his evidence, which is liable to be so contradicted. The questions in the leading form or questions relating to impeachment of the credit of the witness, cannot be asked in the examination-in-chief itself any it is only with the leave of the Court duly obtained under Section 154 of the Evidence Act that such questions can be put by the party to his own witness. The questions in the leading form or questions relating to impeachment of the credit of the witness, cannot be asked in the examination-in-chief itself any it is only with the leave of the Court duly obtained under Section 154 of the Evidence Act that such questions can be put by the party to his own witness. Of course this leave has been obtained but after that the party which called the witness, namely the State only has got a right to put questions that could otherwise be lawful in the cross-examination only, i. e. , to say questions in a leading form and such other questions as could be covered by the Sections 146 and 145 of the Evidence Act. The obtaining of this leave alone would not serve a better purpose unless by putting questions, challenging veracity of the witnesses, or anything else as may be covered by Section 146 or by impeaching his credit in any of the form mentioned in Section 146 of the Evidence Act, the witnesses could be rendered unworthy of credit. ( 11 ) IN the instant case, no such definite attempt has been made and all that the State has put is a so called narration by the witnesses which he has denied and the suggestion that he was telling a lie which as already said above, was wrong in itself. Where a witness has stated on oath that he has not seen anything, he cannot be disbelieved by such suggestions alone. The situation thus bols to a position that the averments of the prosecution case in the F. I. R. as well as the evidence that these witnesses had seen the occurrence, was itself not proved and stood contradicted by their evidence. This situation would further derogate and minimise any, weight of prosecution evidence which even otherwise was not worthy of credit. In result, this appeal should succeed. ( 12 ) THE appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, are hereby quashed. The appellants shall stand acquitted of the charges framed against them. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bails and bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal allowed. .