Honble MOHINI KAPUR, J. — Seven appellants before us, were tried by the Sessions Judge, Alwar for the offences under Sections 302, 302 read with sec 149 and Sec, 148 IPC. By his judgment dated 17.05.!989 the learned Sessions Judge found all of them guilty of offences under sections 302, 302/149, and 148 IPC and sentenced them for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/-for the offence under Section 302 IPC or 302/149 IPC and six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 IPC. In default of payment of fine they were to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. All the seven appellants have preferred this appeal against their conviction and sentence. 2. Seven accused in this case are members of two families. Hurmat and his three sons are accused and Amin Khan and his two sons are accused. Thus the accused consisted of two families, while the complainant party consists of Bhurekhan and his son Asin & daughter Mariam and grand son Vali Mohammed who is son of Asin and the deceased in this case is Sardar Mohammed son of Bhurekhan. 3. The incident out of which the case arises occurred on 23rd Sept. 1988 in village Pilva, which falls under Police Station Sadar Alwar. The report lodged by PW. 1 Bhurekhan is Ex. P/l. According to this report on the same evening at about 5.00 P.M. Sardar Mohammed was having his bath at the well. Seven accused armed with lathies, farsies and ballam (spear) came at the well where Sardar Mohammed was taking bath. All of them surrounded him and started beating. Sardar Mohammed shouted, upon which, Bhurekhan, Mariam, Asin, and Vali Mohammed ran towards that side and saw that all the accused were beating Sardar Mohammed. Accused Deenu had a farsi and Sardar had a ballam (spear) while the others had lathies. Deenu gave a farsi blow on the head of Sardar Mohammed, upon which Sardar Mohammed tried to escape,but others over-powered him and gave several blows. When Bhurekhan and otherreached that place, the accused ran away. Sardar Mohammed who was injured was brought first to the village and then he was taken to Alwar for treatment but on the way at about 9.00 P.M he died. It was also mentioned in the first information report that there was enmity between two parties on account of dispute of land. 4. Sardar Mohammed who was injured was brought first to the village and then he was taken to Alwar for treatment but on the way at about 9.00 P.M he died. It was also mentioned in the first information report that there was enmity between two parties on account of dispute of land. 4. As many as 11 witnesses were examined before the learned Sessions Judge, out of which PW.5 is Dr. R.K. Agarwal, who conducted the postmortem and PW. 11 Rameshwar Prasad is Investigation Officer. Out of the remaining witnesses four witnesses, namely, PW.l Bhurekhan, PW.2 Vali Mohammed, PW3 Mariam and PW4 Asin are the near relatives of the deceased Out of the remaining five, two are police witnesses, who had carried & sealed packets and the remaining three witnesses are hostile witnesses. They had not supported their police statements, hence the case against the appellants has to be decided on the basis of the four witnesses who are, father, brother, sister and nephew of the deceased. 5. The learned Sessions Judge had admitted that there are contradiction & mistakes in the statements of PW.l to PW.4 but still there is some consistency in their statements, therefore, they could be believed and on this basis he arrived at the conclusion that the seven accused had surrounded the decaesed Sardar Mohammed and inflicted several injuries upon him. It was observed that though these witnesses are of the same family, but as all of them saw the occurrence at the same time and they have deposed about it and they could be believed. 6. Before coming to the contention which have been raised before us by the learned counsel for the appellants we may look in to the injuries which were found on the body of the deceased Sardar Mohammed and also look in to that part of the evidence by which different injuries have been assigned to various accused. But before doing so it would be proper to have a description of the well where Sardar Mohammed was taking a bath and the place from where the four alleged eye witnesses came to see the incident. But before doing so it would be proper to have a description of the well where Sardar Mohammed was taking a bath and the place from where the four alleged eye witnesses came to see the incident. The site plan has been prepared by the Investigating Officer and at the same time witnesses have been question-ed to find out more about the distance from the well where the occurrence took place and the house of the witnesses from where they went towards the well. The well at which the incident took place is known as Meethawala well. On the part of this well is a pucca room about 9 x 18 in size. Again on the east of this room there is a field of the complainant party followed by another field of the complainant party. Then there is a road. After the road there is open land and then the house of the complainant. Even the Investigating Officer has mentioned in the site plan that the house of the complainant is about two furlongs away from the well. The two fields of the complainant which come in between their house and the well are about two and half bighas in area. In one of the field there are trees of black plum, ficus religiosa, and eulcayptus etc. It is apparent that the well is not directly visible from the house of the complainant. The distance is about two furlongs or half a kilometer and in between there are trees also and a room near the well. If the occurrence took place at the well itself then the witnesess could not see through the room, and if at all they saw the incident they could have seen only when Sardar Mohammad ran towards the southern side in another field. 7. The following are the injuries which were found on the deceased Sardar Mohammed: 1. 2-1/2" x 3/4 Lacerated wound bonedeep in upper part of pariecto occipital region Rt. side of skull clotts present with clotts. 2. 2-1/2" x 1/4" Bonedeep lacerated wound on upper and posterior part of left parietal region with clotts. 3. 1" x 1/2" Incised wound muscle deep in middle of posterior of left arm with multiple bruise of varying size 2" 1", 1" x 1/2", 1" x1/4", 1 x 1/2" extending from left shoulder to elbow posterior aspect with clotts crepitus feel under neath them. 4. 3. 1" x 1/2" Incised wound muscle deep in middle of posterior of left arm with multiple bruise of varying size 2" 1", 1" x 1/2", 1" x1/4", 1 x 1/2" extending from left shoulder to elbow posterior aspect with clotts crepitus feel under neath them. 4. Bruise 4" x 1" and 3" x 1" on upper part left forearm posterior and posterior aspect of l/3rd part left forearm respectively. 5. Bruises 2 1/2" x 1", 1" x 1/2" size on dorsum of hand (left) and proximal part of Index finger respectively with swelling all over dorsum of hand. 6. Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" on proximal part of Right little finger anteriorly clotts-Nil. 7. Lacerated wound 1 J" x 1" and l" x 1/4, on upper-part left leg anteriorly clotts swelling all around upper part leg crepitus feel underneath them. 8. Incised wound 2" x 1/2" lower I/3rd part leg left anteriorly muscle deep and clotts presents. 9. Incised wound of varying side 1 1/2 x 1/4", 1" x 1", muscle deep on upper half of Right leg anteriorly clotts present. 10. Bruises 6" x 1", 3" x l", 2" xl" on left side chest posteriorly from scapular region to thoratic region obliquely. 11. Bruises 3" x 1" on right scapular region. 12. Bruises 1" x 1/2", 1" x 3/4" on right chest upper part gluteal region. The evidence produced in the case may be looked in to. There are foue eye-witnesses as seen above, who are of the same family. Their statements are similar and we may begin with PW. 1 Bhurekhan. He has stated that he was sitting in front of his house with Mariyam, Asin and Valimohammed at about evening time when his son Sardar Mohammed had gone to the well to had a bath. He has given the distance of the well from his house as 200 steps. They heard some shouts from the well and all of them ran towards that side. He saw that 7 accused in the case came out of their Bajra field and surrounded Sardar Mohammed at the well (names of the seven accused have been mentioned) by him. Sardar accused was armed with a Ballam. Deenu with a farsi and the others with lathies. The first blow was given by Deenu on the head of Sardar Mohammed from the sharp side. Sardar accused was armed with a Ballam. Deenu with a farsi and the others with lathies. The first blow was given by Deenu on the head of Sardar Mohammed from the sharp side. Sardar Mohammed started running and could go only a few steps when all the accused started labouring him with Ballam. Farsi and lathies. When these persons reached the place, the accused ran away. They brought Sardar Mohammed to their house, where he was shouting due to pain. Then they took Sardar Mohammed to the Alwar Hospital but he died in the way. In his cross-examination he has admitted that in front of his house there are kicker trees and after that there is a grave yard. After crossing this there is an open land then the rasta. Then there are two fields and in one of field 150 safeda and peepul trees are growing. He also admitted that there is a pucca room and after that there is the well where Sardar Mohammad, had gone to when asked about the distance of the well from his house he said that it was not one kilometer but less than a half kilometer. He has insisted on saying that when he and other witnesses reached the well, accused had not started beating but were standing around Sardar Mohammed and Sardar Mohammed was feeling nervous. He denied the suggestion that on the day of the incident he was sowing onion in another field, which was far away and at this field Jormal came and informed him as to what has happened. He also said that when Sardar Mohammed was brought at home he had given out the names of the accused in the presence of Ramchandra, Gafoor, Fajroor and Jormal etc. 8. PW.2 Valimohammed has repeated the story and insisted that the well was visible from their house, but it was not visible from the place where they were sitting. Their attention was attracted by the shouts and then they saw the accused surrounding Sardar Mohammad. According to him the well is about 250 steps from their house. PW.3 Mariyam and PW.4 Asin are similar witnesses. PW.6 Gafoor is a hostile witness, who has not supported the story that Sardar Mohammed told him the names of the assailants. PW.7 Ram Chandra has stated that Sardar Mohammed told him that Himat Khan, Deen Mohammed, Sardar Khan and Samsudeen had beaten him. PW.3 Mariyam and PW.4 Asin are similar witnesses. PW.6 Gafoor is a hostile witness, who has not supported the story that Sardar Mohammed told him the names of the assailants. PW.7 Ram Chandra has stated that Sardar Mohammed told him that Himat Khan, Deen Mohammed, Sardar Khan and Samsudeen had beaten him. He was also declared hostile as he did not name the other accused. PW.8 Jormal has stated that when he was passing by the well of Ramlal he saw Sardar Mohammed lying there in an unconscious condition with several injuries on him. Sardar Mohammed did not talk him. He was also declared hostile. The other witness-es are police witnesses and the doctor, who conducted the post mortem. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that actually the incident was not seen by any of the witnesses and they were informed by PW.8 Jormal that Sardar Mohammed was lying injured at the well and then upon this they learnt that Sardar Mohammed had been beaten. To support this theory it is contended that the witnesses have stated that accused Deenu gave a farsi blow on the head of the deceased, but there is no injury by a sharp weapon on his head. Specific blow by ballam (spear) have also been stated, but there are no injuries by a pointed object like ballam (spear). All incised wounds are only on the hands and legs and the dimension of these injuries are also not such which could have been caused by a farsi. When a farsi is raised to cause injury in a deliberate manner then it would cause a sufficiently big wound and not very minor injury. Another contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Sardar Mohammed deceased was not in a position to state as to how the occurrence took place and all the four eye witnesses have consistently spoken a falsehood when they have consistently spoken a falsehood when they have stated that Sardar Mohammed told the persons, who had collected at their house as to how the occurrence took place. It is not natural for a dying man to keep on repeating the manner in which the incident took place. Normally the associates and others who are present narrate, the incident even if they had not seen it. It is not natural for a dying man to keep on repeating the manner in which the incident took place. Normally the associates and others who are present narrate, the incident even if they had not seen it. On page 10 of the paper book, PW 1 Bhure Khan has stated that Sardar Mohammed had narrated the incident to Ramchandra, Gafoor, Fajru and Jormal and others and he (Bhurekhan witness) did not tell these persons as to how the incident occurred. The learned counsel for the appellants has emphasised that the witnesses were at a place from where they cannot hear the shouts of Sardar Mohammed and they were at such a distance that even if they had come running after hearing the shouts they would not have been the assailants giving blows to the deceased. It hardly takes any time to cause a few injuries when a number of persons are attacking and assailants would not have waited till such time as witnesses name there to identify. 10. From the house of Bhurekhan the Place of occurrence cannot between and there are several obstacles in the nature of trees etc. and from a distance of two furlongs the witnesess could not have seen the occurrence. 11. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the findings of the learned Sessions Judge and contended that the witnesess cannot be dis-believed merely, because they are relatives to the deceased. Their statements are consistent and they supported the prosecution story and the guilt of the acc-used is proved. 12. We have gone through the record and perused the statements of all the witnesses, specially the four eye witnesses on basis of whose statements of case is held to be proved. 13. According to the witnesses the accused Deenu gave a farasi blow on the head of the deceased while accused Sardar gave a spear blow. It has been seen above that there are no farasi blow on the head of the deceased. Whether this version and the other general statements of the witnesses should be believed or not is to be considered in the light of the surroundings circumstances. The witnesses were admittedly at a distance of two furlongs or even more, and it can not be expected that they were sitting in front of their house waiting for the shouts so that they may start running towards that side. The witnesses were admittedly at a distance of two furlongs or even more, and it can not be expected that they were sitting in front of their house waiting for the shouts so that they may start running towards that side. When the shouts caught their attention then all four of them who are different ages could not have come in the visibility at the same time. PW. i Bhurekhan is 65 years old, while PW. 2 Vali Mohammed is a young man of 22 years. PW. 3 Mariam is a woman of 30 years and PW.4 Asin has given his age 50 years. Ail of them could not have seen the incident at the same point of time. It is apparent that they are depo-sing in a consistent manner because they had decided to depose that the incident occurred in a particular manner. Had the witnesses been in the field near the well the matter would have been diffierent. If they heard the shouts at their house they could not have immediately thought that somebody was assaulting Sardar Mohammed. Just as they heard the shouts, there could be other people who heard the same and in that case there would have been some indepentendt witnesses not part of the family of the deceased to see the incident. Had the place been visible from the house of the complainant then the matter would have been different. Here the view even if within the normal—of visibility though there is doubt about it, there are several trees to block the view & the witnesees could not have immediately known that it was Sardar Mohammed who was being attacked. It cannot be denied that Sardar Mohammed was beaten to death, as he had several injuries on his body on account of which he died. But having those injuries and finding of blood at a place near that well does not by itself establish that the present appellants had caused these injuries. The witnesses in this connection have already been looked in to and we would again like to say that all four of them have stated in similar fashion that first Deenu inflicted the farasi blow at Sardar Mohammed and he started to run and others surrounded and gave blows by lathies and ballam (spear). The witnesses in this connection have already been looked in to and we would again like to say that all four of them have stated in similar fashion that first Deenu inflicted the farasi blow at Sardar Mohammed and he started to run and others surrounded and gave blows by lathies and ballam (spear). The witnesses have introduced that after receiving farsi blow inflicted by Deenu Sardar Mohammed tried to run away from there and when all of them surrounded and gave merciless beating. This light run-ing away from the well has been introduced by them to bring him at a position from where the obstruction of house would be removed. But then the house of the complaintant party was very far and they could not have witnesessed the occurrence even if they ran from their house to cover the distance of two furlongs at the speed similar to that of a fast runner. 14. Admittedly it is the case that there is enmity between the complaintant and the accused. If the accused party could inflict injuries on Sardar Moha-mmed to cause his death then on account of this very enmity it self the complainant party could falsely implicate the accused if there were no eye witneses to see the actual incident. 15. We are of the that opiniom the eye witness in the case are of the same family and are interested witnesess & they have deposed in a manner which show that they have discussed and planned as to how the occurrence took place and are witnesses who do not inspire confidence. There is no evidence in the nature of corroborative evidence to suggest that the occurrence took place as stated by the witnesses. Further it is clear that from the statements of Dr. R.K. Agarwal that after receiving all the injuries Sardar Mohammed could not have been conscious and the witnesses have kept him alive and conscious only in order to create evidence of his statement before other witnesses as to how the occurrence took place. 16. For reasons discussed above, we hold that the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. The appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence of all the appellants are set aside. Samsu @ Samsuddin and Mauz Khan are on bail their bail bonds shall stand discharged. 16. For reasons discussed above, we hold that the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. The appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence of all the appellants are set aside. Samsu @ Samsuddin and Mauz Khan are on bail their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Deenu & Deen Mohammed, Amin Khan, Sardar @ Sardar Mohammed, Humrat and Isab are in Jail, they shall be released forth with, if not required in any other case.