JUDGMENT 1. - These two criminal appeals are directed against the judgment dated 19th April, 1980 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 15/1978. convicting the accused-appellant for offences under Secs. J02 and 324, IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life for conviction under Section 302. IPC ai d, six months imprisonment for conviction under Section 324, IPC and a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default, to one monihs further imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently; and acquitted the rest of the accused persons. 2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are one Jaimal of village Anantpura, tehsil and Police Station Behror lodged a First Information Report at Police Station, Behror. This First Information Report purports to bear the signature of Jaimal, though it was scribed by one Shri Ratan Lal, another resident of the same village. On the basis of this written report, SHO Gyan Prakash entered the same in the roznamcha at 10 a.m. on 18th August, 1978. As per this written report, lodged by Jaimal, on the morning of 18th August, 1978, at about 8 a m. all of a sudden 19 persons with a common object armed with gun, farsies and sticks entered his (Jaimals) nohra with an intention to commit murder of Smt. Sarvan wife of Jaimal and one Banshi. It was further stated that almost suddenly accused Jagmal Singh also entered the Nohra Jagmal Singh was also armed with a gun and fired the gun-shot at Smt. Sarvan On hearing the sound of the shot Bhojraj and others who were said to be in their own nohra, which is just near to the Nohra of Jaimal came to the rescue of Jaimal and others who were victims of unprovoked assault with guns farsies and other weapons. It was also stated in this First Information Report that besides the shot fired by Jagmal Singh which hit Smt. Sarvan, Hira Singh & Subesingh inflicted lathi blows on Smt. Sarvan and four persons namely Ramanand, Sahi Ram, Hazari Lal i.e. the present appellant and Dayaia Ram inflicted farsi blows on the body of Smt. Sarvan which caused her instantaneous death on the spot. 3. 3. With respect to Banshi also, it was stated that that besides pallet injuries which he received from the gun-shot fired by Jagmalsingh, Sahi Ram and Hazari inflicted farsi blows on the person of Banshi, while the remaining 16 persons gave lathi blows which caused serious injuries on the person of Banshi, who was brought to Behror by Jaimal and Banshi also succumbed to these injuries at Behror. Banshi was left at Behror dispensary and Jaimal went to the Police Station for handing over the written report. It was also mentioned n this First Information Report that Bhoj Raj. Dalu Ram Ramjilal. Dugda, Raghuveer and Hardayal also sustained injuries by lathies. farsies and gun shots. Pappu son of Data Ram was standing nearby and he also sustained pallet injuries and bis condition became critical. Farsi belows were given both from the sharp and reverse sides and it cannot be said with certain y as to who sustained injuries from the sharp side of the farsi and who by the reverse side. The police registered the case against the accused persons under Sections 302/307, 147, 148 and 149, IPC and Sec 27 of the Arms Act and started investigation. 4. On the same day i.e. 18th August, 1978 Hazari Lal son of Panna Lal i.e. the present appellant along with Gheesa son of Ramu r/o Anantpura lodged a First Information Report, which is Ex. D/2J, to the effect that on 18th August, 1978, he was sitting in the nohra and while he was taking 'hukka. Bhoj Raj son of Johra, Ramjilal, Data Ram, Balwant Singh, Gauri Shankar, Chiranji Lal son of Bboj Raj, Pappu son of Jaimal, Hardayal. Raghuveer son of Lekha Ram. Sher Singh, Babu Lai, Ramniwas son of Jaimal etc. armed with lathies, farsies and gun entered into Hazaris nohra from the western gate with the intention to kill him. Hazari ran towards the eastern gate of the Nohra to save himself and which is near the gate in the street. Bir Singh, son of Moda Ram, Mukund Ram son of Nanagram, Let la Ram, Phool Chand S/o Onkar, Lal Singh, Ratan Singh son of Mukand Ram, Sheo Lal, Nand Ram son of Richpal, Ram Singh son of Sheo Ram, Data Ram son of Nand Ram, Chand Ram Dhola Ram, Bihari Lal, Khyali Ram son of Sheo Narain. Ramavtar son of Bihari Lal. Ramavtar son of Bihari Lal. Jai Dayal son of Girdhari, Bodan son of Phoosa and Banshi son of Arjun and many women were with lathies and farsies. Having seen them when Hazarj came out of Nohia along with his gun so as to take shelter in his house through the eastern side, all of them attacked him with lathies and farsies. Hazari went on defending himself by intercepting his gun which broke down. When Gheesa came to his rescue, he was given a farsi blow by Mool Chand. Hazari made an air fire in his defence, while Dala Ram son of Bhoj Raj was also firing. With the sound of the fire, the assailants went away. Hazari having saved himself went to the police station on foot to make the report and also carried the gun with him broken but of the gun along with three mis-fired cartridges which were taken into police custody. 5. After the usual investigation, the police submitted challan under sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 325, 323/149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the accused persons, in the Court of Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Behror who committed the accused persons to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Behror to face trial. The case was subsequently transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar for trial. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charges against accused Jagmal under Sections 148, 302, 325, 323 and 149. IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Rest of the accused persons were charged under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/1 9, 325/149 and 3/3/149, IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. Thus, as par the First Information Report Ex. P/1 which was lodged within two hours of the time of the incident on the same date i. e. 18th August, 1978, Jaimal is the complainant, Ratan Singh is the scribe of the FIR and Smt. Sarvan and Banshi are the victims. 7. Out of 19 witnesses named in the FIR Balwan absconded and rest of the 18 persons faced trial. In the trial, the prosecution examined 28 witnesses, namely PW/1 Jaimal, PW/2 Ramjilal, PW/3 Har Lal. PW/4 Gheesa Ram PW/5 Kishore, PW/6 Ghuda Ram. PW/7 Raghuveer, PW/8 Sher Singh, PW/9 Phool Singh. PW/10 Bihari Lal. 7. Out of 19 witnesses named in the FIR Balwan absconded and rest of the 18 persons faced trial. In the trial, the prosecution examined 28 witnesses, namely PW/1 Jaimal, PW/2 Ramjilal, PW/3 Har Lal. PW/4 Gheesa Ram PW/5 Kishore, PW/6 Ghuda Ram. PW/7 Raghuveer, PW/8 Sher Singh, PW/9 Phool Singh. PW/10 Bihari Lal. PW/11 Raj Singh, PW/12 Ramniwas, PW/13 Bhoj Raj, PW/14 Babulal, PW/15 Hardayal, PW/16 Mehar Chand, PW/17 Data Ram, PW/18 Ramniwas, PW/19 Nand Ram, PW/20 Shyolal, PW/21 Dr. Chandra Shekhar Pradhan PW/22 Dr P. S. Agrawal, PW/23 Harnarain. PW/24 Balwant Singh, PW/25 Dr Deshbandhu Gupta, PW/25 Dr. Suresh Chandra Meena, PW/27 Gyan Prakash and PW/28 Dr. Devendra Sen. 8. 80 documents Ex. P/1 to Ex P/80 were exhibited; 23 witnesses were examined in defence and 41 documents were exhibited in defence. 9. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant, Hazari in Appeal No. 157/ 1980 and respondent accused in Appeal No. 559/80 that the place of occurrence had been changed. According to the prosecution, the incident took place in the Nohra of Jaimal where at about 8 a.m. in the morning Jaimal was sitting with his wife Sarvan, Raghuveer, Hardayal and his son Sher Singh According to PW/1 Jaimal, accused persons first gharaod Sher Singh in the galiyara when he had gone to attend the call of nature. Thereupon, Sher Singh took shelter in the Nohra of Tara Singh. Thereafter the accused persons came into the nohra of Jaimal. Against this, it has been submitted on behalf of the accused persons that the incident had taken place in the street outside the Nohra of Hazari, the present appellant. After considering the evidence led by both the sides in this behalf, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said with certainty that the incident took place in the nohra of Jaimal for the following reasons:- (a) White the prosecution witnesses have deposed that the gun was fired 5 to 10 times, there are no marks of shots at any place in this Nohra either on the walls or on the boundry wall or at any other place. PW/1 has deposed as under:- " tc eSa vius ?kj vk;k rc iqfyl okys ogka ij [kM+s FksA eSaus uksgjs esa fdlh nhokj ;k Mksyh xksyh ;k NjsZ ds dksbZ fu'kku ugha ns[ksA " PW/27 SHO has stated as under:- " oSey ds uksgjs esa NjksZa ds fu'kku nhokjksa ij fn[kkbZ ugha fn;sA " (b) Had the incident taken place in the Nohra of Jaimal, as alleged by the prosecution and had there been a continuous firing by Jagmal as alleged, marks of some gun-shots would have been certainly thereon the walls in the Nohra or the boundry wall thereof. The absence of such marks poses a question mark on the theory that the place of occurrence was Nohra of Jaimal. (c) It is also the case of the prosecution that PW/1 had seen the empties of the cartridges at the place of occurrence which was Nohra of Jaimal. It has been stated by PW/1 that such empties were lying in the way as well as Nohra, and the empty cartridges were also lying where Banshi was hit empty cartridge was also lying where Sarvan had fallen down. However, no such empty cartridges have been recovered by the police. PW/27 SHO Police Station, Behror, Gyan Prakash has not deposed that no empty cartridges were found on the spot. He has stated as under:- " esjh rQ~rh'k esa Qk;fjax dh fuf'pr rknkn ugha vkbZA eq>s /;ku ugha fd rQrh'k esa nks ;k vf/kd Qk;fjax dk gksuk ik;k ;k ughaA dkjrq'k pys gq, ?kVuk LFky ij ugha feysA ;g xyr gS fd eSaus pys gq, dkjrw'k ds [kkstksa dks Nqik fy;k gksA ;g xyr gS fd esjs dks dksbZ xokgku us ekSds ij [kks[ks iM+s gksuk crk;k gksA " As against this. PW/20 Shri Sheolal, an attesting witness to the site-plan, has stated that the empty cartridges had been recovered and in cross-examination, he has further stated the length of the empty cartridges was equivalent to a finger and has against said about the length with certainty, but he has reiterated that the empties had been taken in custody by the police who had put the same in the cloth. (d) It is also remained unexplained as to why the persons namely Raghuveer, Hardayal etc. had assembled in the Nohra of Jaimal. 10. (d) It is also remained unexplained as to why the persons namely Raghuveer, Hardayal etc. had assembled in the Nohra of Jaimal. 10. The trial Court has also dealt with the matter and in the impugned judgment, at page 60-61 of the paper-book, it has been mentioned as under " vr% okds dk LFkku t;ey dk uksgjk gekjh jk; esa ugha gks ldrkA nwljs eqn~ns ls Hkh ;fn ns[kk tkos rks ge ;g dg ldrs gS fd okds dk LFkku t;ey dk uksgjk ugha gS D;ksafd tgka 20&25 feuV rd nuknu xksyh pys ogkWa ij uksgjs isM+ tehu vkfn ij NjksZa ds fu'kkukr feyus pkfg;s ftlds ckjs esa vfHk;kstu i{k ds lkjs xokgku ,der gksdj ;g dgrs gSa fd ogka mUgksaus NjksZa ds dksbZ fu'kkukr ugha ns[ksA vr mDr t;ey ds uksgjs ds iM+kslh fcgkjhyky Mh0m020 ds c;ku dks gesa foo'k gksdj Lohdkj djuk iM+rk gS fd gtkjh ds edku dh vksj yM+kbZ gks jgh Fkh vkSj cUnwd dh vkokt gtkjh ds edku dh vksj ls vk jgh Fkh vkSj FkksM+h nsj ckn cU'kh o eq0 ljou dks t;ey ds uksgjs esa ykdj fyVk fn;k x;kA izn'kZ Mh0 10 uD'kk ekSdk ns[kus ls ge bl lEHkkouk ls bUdkj ugha dj ldrs fd e`rd eq0 ljou ,oa cU'kh dks t;ey ds uksgjs esa t:j fyVk;k x;k Fkk D;ksafd ch0 o lh0 LFkku ij [kwu ds fu'kkukr ugha ik;k x;k gSaA nhxj fdlh Hkh LFkku ij t;ey ds uksgjs esa [kwu ds fu'kkukr ugha ik;s x;s gSaA vfHk;kstu i{k ds lkjs vkgr djhc&djhc ;g /;ku nsrs gSa fd t;ey ds uksgjs esa [kwu gh [kwu gks x;k FkkA ;fn vfHk;kstu i{k dh dgkuh dks lgh ekuk tkos rks tgka 20&25 feuV cUnwd pyh gks ,oa ykBh QlhZ ls 18 vU; O;fDr;ksa us ekjihB dh gks] ogka ij [wku gh [kwu gksxk LokHkkfod Hkh gSA bl izdkj ds i{k dk leFkZu vfHk;kstu i{k }kjk izLrqr fd;h Hkh dkxt ls ugha gksrk vkSj u gh ih0 m0 27 Kkuizdk'k ds c;ku ls gksrk gSA vr% Mh0 M0 20 fcgkjhyky tks t;ey ds uksgjs dk iM+kSlh gS] ds c;ku dks njxqtkj djus dk dksbZ dkj.k gekjh le> esa ugha vkrk [kkl rkSj ls ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa tcfd ih0 M0 27 Kkuizdk'k us u rks iM+kSfl;ksa ls iwNrkN dh gS] vkSj u gh gtkjh fd fjiksVZ izn'kZ Mh0 24 dks ntZ jftLV~j dj ml ij vuqla/kku fd;k gSA ;gka rd fd gtkjh dh fjiksVZ izn'kZ Mh0 24 dks ntZ jftLVj dj ml ij vuqla/kku fd;k gSA ;gka rd fd gtkjh ds erkfcd crk;s gq, LFkku dk eqvk;uk djus dk Hkh d"V vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh us ugha fd;k gSA ,slh lwjr esa cpko i{k ds dFku T;knk fo'oluh; izrhr gksrs gSa fd okds dk LFkku gtkjh vfHk;qDr dk uksgjk ,oa mlds ckgj fLFkr xyh gSA " 11. Thus, it appears that the place of occurrence possibly was different than the Nohra of Jaimal or the street outside the same. 12. It was then argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the entire investigation in this case has been infirm, unfair and tainted. Our attention has been invited to that part of the judgment at page 48 of the paper book, where the trial Court has recorded that the Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel who appeared on behall of the complainant had admitted that the investigation in this case bad many lacunas and it was suggested that these lacuna had been deliberately kept by the Investigating Officer in order to help the accused persons. The suggestion that the lacunas have been deliberately kept by the Investigating Officer in order to help the accused persons is not convincing for two reasons (i) because, the Investigating Officer SHO (PW/27) has tried to withhold upto the last document Ex. D/27, which hits the FiR itself. According to the FIR, deceased Banshi was taken to the Behror hospital where he died. This FIR was lodged at 10 a.m., whereas according to the document Ex D/27, which is a letter addressed to the SHO, Behror, under the signature of Bhawanisingh Yadav, as Officer-in-charge Dispensary, Behror, the dead body of Banshi was received in the Government Dispensary, Behror at 10.20 a m. and it has been mentioned therein that since the Medical Officer-in-charge of this dispensary was out of Headquaters on leave, the dead body of Banshi be sent also where (ii) no action was taken by the Investigating Officer on the report of Hazari i. e. Ex. D/24 and this report Ex. D/24 was filed by the Investigating Officer by branding it to be untrue and without making any investigation. Had the Investigating Officer been interested in the accused persons, he would have at least registered the case on the report of Hazari, but no case was registered on the report of Hazari and further the names of Rajendra and Mahaveer were also not included in the list of witnesses along with the challan, whose statement had been recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. 13. The infirmities in the investigation can be succinctly stated as under 1. In Ex. The infirmities in the investigation can be succinctly stated as under 1. In Ex. D 10 i. e. site-plan (Naksa Mauka) the distance between the accused and the deceased has not been mentioned, and there is no mention about distance even in the statement recorded under Section 161, Cr JP C. 2. There is no mention in the site-plan Ex. D/27 about the absence of marks of shots on the wall of the Nohara or its boundary wall. 3. In view of the report, which had been lodged by Hazari i. e. DW/24, the Investigating Officer should have inspected the Nohra of Hazari and the street near Hazari's Nohra on the eastern side so as to ascertain as to whether the correct place of occurrence was Nohra of Jaimal or the Nohra of Hazari or the street near Hazaris Nohra. 4. The items were recovered vide Ex. P/9 & Ex.P/10 and cloths of deceased Sarvan and Banshi and pallets etc. had been placed in the Malkhana, Police Station, Behror on 19th August, 1978 itself. The gun of Hazari i.e. Articles 1 & 3 and the misfired cartridges Article 8 were there at the Police Station, Behror on 18th August, 1978 itself. All these items were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory as late as on 23rd March, 1979 and for this delay no explanation has been given and there is no evidence on record to show that all these items were in the same condition as they were at the time of recovery, when they were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. 5. The cloths of the injured persons (except Sarvan and Banshi) had also not been taken into custody and there is no explanation recorded. This lacuna becomes all the mote conspicuous when the injured persons have clearly stated that there were blood marks on their cloths and there were also mark of pallets on their cloths and they had shown the same to the police. 6. This lacuna becomes all the mote conspicuous when the injured persons have clearly stated that there were blood marks on their cloths and there were also mark of pallets on their cloths and they had shown the same to the police. 6. The names of Rajendra and Mahaveer were not included in he list of witnesses filed along with the challan although their statement had bctu recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. The document Ex D 27 which was written by Bhawani Singh as incharge of the Behror dispensary with regard to Banshi was withheld from the Court and the same was not made a part of the record in this case by the police. 7. Once a report had been made by Hazari, the same ought to have been investigated upon, but it was just filled without any investigation whatsoever. 8. The whole prosecution case has been condemned by the trial Court in the following words:- " mi;qZDr foospukuqlkj gesa ;g fy[krs gq, cM+k gh nq[k gS fd bl izdkj ds nksgjh gR;k okys dsl esa tks vuqlU/kku fd;k x;k gS og bruk ypj gS fd lkjk dsl gh 'kadkLin gks tkrk gSA blls ;g Li"V izrhr gksrk gS fd vly okds dk fNikrs gq, nks e`rd ,oa 13 vU; vkgrx.k dks ykHk ysrs gq, ih0M0 1 t;ey o ih0M0 27 Kkuizdk'k us dsl dks ,d nwljk :i nsus dh dksf'k'k dh gS] ysfdu gekjh jk; esa os blesa lQy ugha gks ik;s gSaA okds ds LFkku ds ckjs esa Hkh dsl cM+k 'kadkLin izrhr gksrk gSA izn'kZ Mh0 22 tks ,d Lohd`r nLrkost gS] dks ns[krs ls ,d ckr Li"V gksrh gS fd xokgku ds fjgk;'kh edkukr t;ey ds uksgjs ds ikl ugha gS] cfYd gtkjh ds uksgjs ds iwohZ xyh ds vklikl gSA vr% mudk fdlh mns'; ls ,df=r gksdj mDr xyh vFkok gtkjh ds uksgjs ds ikl vkuk LokHkkfod izrhr gksrk gSA gjyky] ?khlk ,oa fd'kksjk tks Lohd`r nLrkost izn'kZ Mh0 23 ds rgr vfHk;kstu i{k ds t;ey oxSjgk ls lEcfU/kr ugha gSa] ds Hkh edku izn'kZ Mh0 22 ds vuqlkj vklikl gh gSa] vr% mudks Hkh gtkjh ds uksgjs ds ckgj xyh esa vkuk LokHkkfod izrhr gksrk gS] ysfdu t;ey ds uksgjk ogka ls dkQh nwj gS] tgka ij lkjs vkgrksa ,oa xokgku dk igqapuk vLokHkkfod lh ckr izrhr gksrh gSA " 14. Thus, it is obvious that the investigation suffers from serious infirmities and it was unfair to ignore and file the report filed by appellant Hazari and to investigate only those matters which were assailed by the complainant i.e. Jaimal and others and to ignore and leave the report of Hazari totally un-investigated. 15. In these circumstances, when the whole investigation is found to be infirm and the case of Hazari as was disclosed in Ex D/24 was not investigated, more particularly when Hazari in his report had stated that he had been attacked and had tried to save himself by obstructing the attacks with the help of his gun and in this process the gun had been broken and he himself had approached the police with the broken pieces of the gun and has also mentioned in this document Ex. D/24 that he had also fired in the air in his defence. Such a report which was clearly indicative of exercise of right of private defence by Hazari could not be simply ignored and filed. 16. We have, gone through the ocular evidence medical evidence, attendant circumstances and the whole record of the case, and from the discussion as aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the State appeal against acquittal must fail because no case against the accused persons, who have been acquitted, could be proved and there could not be convicted on the basis of such infirm investigation and the evidence. We find that the theory of exercise of right of private defence as had been put forth by appellant Hazari at the earliest through Ex. D/24 right from the date of occurrence coupled with the fact that he had tendered the pieces of broken gun on that very date before the police cannot be discarded. The trial Court has considered as to whether the appellant, Hazari, had reasonable apprehension that in case he does not use his gun he would have been killed or would have sustained fatal injuries. The mere absence of injuries on the person of Hazari cannot lead to an inference that the case put up by Hazari was unbelievable. The trial Court has considered as to whether the appellant, Hazari, had reasonable apprehension that in case he does not use his gun he would have been killed or would have sustained fatal injuries. The mere absence of injuries on the person of Hazari cannot lead to an inference that the case put up by Hazari was unbelievable. We do not find that there is any such evidence on record on the basis of which an opinion could be formed that appellant Hazari had exceeded the right of private defence or that the prosecution has been able to establish it beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Hazari could be held guilty of committing murder of Sarvan and Banshi. 17. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the benefit of doubt has been wrongly given to the accused persons and the plea of alibi has been wrongly accepted. Most of the injuries have been caused by gun and only few injuries have been caused by lathies and farsies. There is no convincing proof for the same and what we fail to understand is that if the accused persons were armed with guns, lathies and farsies and they were good in number,why they were not able to hit the real persons against whom they were seriously aggrieved and why only the innocent persons like Sarvan and Banshi were killed. Apart from the injured persons the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution were only a few steps away from the place of occurrence, the fight lasted for 20-22 minutes and the prosecution case is that Jagmal went on firing continuously and yet any of these witnesses other than the injured persons who were standing quite nearby have not sustained any injury. So far as accused Gheesa is concerned, he has sustained two injuries on his head as it appears from Ex. P/30 He had been arrested on 18th Aug ,1978 itself and on 19th Aug ,1978, Doctor had advised in Ex.P/30 for his x-ray and yet there is nothing on record that he was x-rayed. So far as accused Gheesa is concerned, he has sustained two injuries on his head as it appears from Ex. P/30 He had been arrested on 18th Aug ,1978 itself and on 19th Aug ,1978, Doctor had advised in Ex.P/30 for his x-ray and yet there is nothing on record that he was x-rayed. The injuries on the person of the accused have remained unexplained and the accused, Gheesa, having heard the noise and gone to Hazaris Nohra and found that Haztri was being assaulted and Hazari was standing there with gun and when he (Gheesa) intervened, a serious injury was caused to him on has head and be had been falsely implicated and, this version of Gheesa is also found to be duly mentioned in Ex. D/24 i.e. report made by Hazari. In these circumstances, Gheesa had been rightly given the benefit of doubt. In respect of other persons, they have been acquitted and their plea of alibi has been accepted. No evidence was tendered on behalf of the prosecution to disbelieve and discard the version of their absence on the scene of occurrence. Th .- plea of alibi is also advanced by documentary evidence of Teachers Attendance Register and the copy of the register of the Sainik Vishram Grah in case of Jagmal Singh. 18. The prosecution has failed to establish the case against Hazari and other accused persons by any cogent, succinct and reliable evidence. The prosecution case in the light of the evidence which has come on record in this case does not provide a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused. 19. Having examined the case from all aspects of the matter, we find that the benefit of doubt has been rightly given and we do not feel inclined to interfere with the order of acquitted in case of any of the accused persons in the State Appeal. 20. Accordingly, the acquittal of accused persons (1) Jagmal Singh son of Panna Lal, (2) Hazari son of Panna Lal. (3) Dharamveer son of Dheera, (4) Gheesa son of Bhola, (5) Jarman son of Hem Raj. 20. Accordingly, the acquittal of accused persons (1) Jagmal Singh son of Panna Lal, (2) Hazari son of Panna Lal. (3) Dharamveer son of Dheera, (4) Gheesa son of Bhola, (5) Jarman son of Hem Raj. (6) Sube Singh son of Sardara, (7) Parsa son of Meena, (8) Dheera son of Panna Lal, (9) Sahiram son of Bheekha, (10) Dayal Chand son of Bheekha, (II) Rati Ram son of Parsa, (12) Gheesa son of Ramu, (13) Bhola son of Richhpal, (14) Heera Lal son of Panna Lal, (15) Ramanand son of Panna Lal, (16) Hem Raj son of Duli Chand. (17) Rampat son of Duli Chand and (18) Hem Raj son of Chander is upheld. The State Appeal is dismissed. The accused persons need not surrender to their bail bonds and the same are cancelled. Parsa son of Meena, accused No. 7 and Rampat son of Duli Chand, accused No. 17 are said to have already expired during the pendency of the appeal. The State Appeal No. 259/1980 is accordingly dismissed. 21. So far as Hazari is concerned, the mere absence of injuries on the person of Hazari is no ground to discard his version and with regard to the same incident when all other accused persons have been acquitted and the entire prosecution case stands condemned as necessary ingredients with regard to commission of the offence under Sections 149, IPC are wanting and there is no evidence as against appellant Hazari in isolation; there is no basis to sustain the conviction of Hazari and he is also equally entitled to the benefit of doubt. 22. The result is that State Appeal No. 359/980 is dismissed D. B. Cr. Appeal No. 157/1980 filed by accused appellant Hazari is allowed. His conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 324, IPC. He is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds. *******