SURYA PRASAD, J. This is a criminal appeal the judgment and order, dated 18-7-79 passed by the then VII Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpar in Sessions Trial No. 606 of 1978 convicting the appellants under Sections 147 and 307 read with Section 149, I. P. C. and sentencing them to two years and 5 years rigorous imprisonment each, respectively, there under. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant Lal Bahadur, son of Bhudhar is a resident of village Jarbhan within the Police Station Powayan, district Shahjahanpur. It is alleged that one Ram Singh resident of the said village was murdered a few months back. Consequently, Ram Singhs brother Ram Sagar had implicated Lal Bahadur, his brothers and six others in the murder case of Ram Singh. Not only this but he (Ram Sagar) had also lodged first information report against him (Lal Bahadur) and two others of the said village under Section 307, I. P. C, 3, 4 months after the murder of Ram Singh. Therefore, Ram Sagar had generated feelings of animocity against Lal Bahadur and other members of his family. lalbahadur was released on bail 20-21 days back in the said case. It is further alleged that Ram Sagar had formed a party consisting of himself, Buddhu Lal, Jagar Nath and Sheo Nandan residents of the said village and one Murari Pasi resident of village Takeli with a view to killing him (Lal Bahadur ). It is further alleged that lalbahadur apprehended danger to his life and, therefore, he made up his mind to settle in village Gagsara where his brother Hardwaris Sasural was. It is further alleged that lalbahadur alongwith his brothers Hardwari, Paftoo Lal and brother-in-law (Sala) Nilkanth was going to the said village Gagsara. It was at about 1. 30 p. m. that they reached the field of Balkoo Dhobi resident of village Takeli and were surrounded- by Ram Sagar and Sunder Lal, sons of Dadram, Jagarnath son of Kissa Pasi, Shivnandan Singh son of Roop Singh resident of the said village Jarbhan and Murari resident of village Takeli. Sunder lalwas armed with a gun whereas others were holding Lathis in their hands. They threw challenge to him (Lal Bahadur) and expressed that they would not spare him. Thereafter a fire was shot at him at once. That fire-shot hit his brother Puttoo Lal. They all raised alarm. Sunder lalwas armed with a gun whereas others were holding Lathis in their hands. They threw challenge to him (Lal Bahadur) and expressed that they would not spare him. Thereafter a fire was shot at him at once. That fire-shot hit his brother Puttoo Lal. They all raised alarm. But thefabovenamed accused persons started weilding lathis on Putto Lal indiscriminately. Hearing the alarm raised, Ram Das son of Khayali and many others of his village, while shouting rushed to the place of occurrence. Consequently, the accused fled away leaving Puttoo Lal on the spot. lalbahadur took Puttoo Lal to the police station by a bullock-cart and lodged a report there. After the completion of the usual investigation a charge-sheet was submitted and on that basis a case was registered. The appellants Murli and Sheo Nandan were tried on that basis in the Session Trial No. 606 of 1978, State v. Murli and other and on the conclusion of the evidence they were convicted and sentenced by the aforesaid learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide his impugned judgment and order as mentioned above. Being aggrieved they preferred the present appeal against the same. 3. It may not be out of place to mention that the co-accused Ram Sagar, Jagarnath and Sunder lalin respect of the same incident the facts of which have been narrated above were tried separately in the earlier Sessions Trial No. 303 of 1975 wherein the then learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur convicted them under Section 147, I. P. C. and 307 read with Section 149, I. P. C. and sentenced them, respectively, to one years and five years rigorous imprisonment there under. He further convicted Sunder lalunder Section 148, I. P. C. and 307 read with Section 149, I. P. C. and con victed him to two years and five years rigorous imprisonment, respectively there under. 4. Having been aggrieved of the judgment and order the co-accused Ram Sagar and others preferred a Criminal Appeal being Appeal No. 2186 of 1977, Ram Sagar and others v. State of U. P. , against the same. The Honble High Court vide its judgment dated 26-4-1982 allowed the said appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge and acquitted the co-accused Ram Sagar, Jagarnath and Sunder lalof the charges levelled against them. The Honble High Court vide its judgment dated 26-4-1982 allowed the said appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge and acquitted the co-accused Ram Sagar, Jagarnath and Sunder lalof the charges levelled against them. Certified copy of the judgment of Criminal Appeal No. 2186 of 1977 has been filed by the appellants in the instant Criminal Appeal No. 2189 of 1979 Murli and another v. State. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the entire record. 6. There were only two witnesses lalbahadur and Puttoo Lal who was injured were examined in the aforesaid Sessions Trial No. 303 of 1975. Only these two witnesses were also examined in the subsequent Session Trial No. 606 of 1978 to which the present appeal relates. lalbahadur and Puttoo Lal are real brothers as mentioned earlier. 7. A perusal of the certified copy of the judgment of the Appeal No. 2186 of 1977 would show that lalbahadur and Puttoo Lal both were dis believed by the Honble High Court. 8. The first information report shows that all the accused shouted to kill Lal Bahadur, who has also given his statement to this effect. But Puttoo Lal has deposed that the accused shouted to kill him on the spot. lalbahadur has further stated that the accused fled away towards east after firing and beating Puttoo Lal. But Puttoo lalhas stated that they ran away towards north through the field of Sangam Lal. The site plan shows that there are two fields of Balkoo Dhobi and that they are contiguous to each other with a demarketing line (Mend) in between. The field of Sangam lalis towards north from the northern field of Biilkoo Dhobi. According to the site plan the accused have been shown to have fled away towards east through the Mend of the fields of Bulkoo Dhobi. This is, what is also apparent from the state ment of lal Bahadur. In view of all this, the site does not find support from the statement of Puttoo laland vice- versa. Moreover, the statements of lal Bahadur and Puttoo lal are contradictory to each other on the point of the direction towards which the accused actually ran away after the alleged incident. Their statements are also contradictory on other points. 9. The accused are alleged to have come from the northern side. Moreover, the statements of lal Bahadur and Puttoo lal are contradictory to each other on the point of the direction towards which the accused actually ran away after the alleged incident. Their statements are also contradictory on other points. 9. The accused are alleged to have come from the northern side. Lal Bahadur, Puttoo laland others were allegedly going -towards north. They were surrounded by the accused, Puttoo lal was medically examined and the following injuries were found on his person: 1. Two punctured wounds of gun shot of entry on the back of the left hand in the middle part - size 0. 25 cm. X 0. 25 cm. One chaire palpable. 2. Two gun-shot wounds of entry of 0. 25 cm. x 0. 25 cm. On the back of the right ended and thumb at the second plate feugeal joint one chaire palpable. 3. Contusion of 8 cms. x 8 cms. fracture of the right lower humens of right upper arm with swelling of the elbow joint X-ray Adv. 4. Contusion of 8 cms. x 7 cms. at the upper third of the left fore arm with fracture of both bones of left fore arm X-ray Adv. 5. Contusion of 10 cms. X (sic) cm. at the back of the middle of the right thigh. 6. Abrasion of 2 cms. X 2 cms. at the right side of right knee joint. 7. Contusion of 7 cms. x 7 cms. at the right back chest 20 cms. below the shoulder. 10. The Doctor concerned has described injuries No. 1 and 2 as having been caused by firearm. There is no firearm injury on the front part of the body of Puttoo Lal. Therefore, taking into consideration, all the facts and circumstances of the case, the above firearm injuries cannot be said to have been caused in such a manner and under such circumstances as alleged by the prosecution. 11. In view of what has been observed above the statement of lal Bahadur and Putto lal cannot be believed. They have, however, already been disbelieved by the Honble High Court vide its judgment in Criminal Appeal Mo. 2186 of 1977 Ram Sugar and others v. State of U. P. referred to earlier. 12. 11. In view of what has been observed above the statement of lal Bahadur and Putto lal cannot be believed. They have, however, already been disbelieved by the Honble High Court vide its judgment in Criminal Appeal Mo. 2186 of 1977 Ram Sugar and others v. State of U. P. referred to earlier. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that since the other co-accused have already been acquitted by the Honble High Court in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal No. 2186/77 in connection with the same offence as is alleged to have been committed by the present appellants-co-accused and also in the basis of the same evidence, these accused-appellants Murli and Sheo Nandan should also be acquitted otherwise the possibility of creation of anomalous position in law and the likelihood of the shaking of confidence of the public in the administration of justice cannot be ruled out. His conten tion finds full support from Diwan Singh (Applicant) v. State (Opposite party) reported in 1965 ALJ at page 11 wherein the following observations have been made: - "if two persons are prosecuted, though separately, under the same charge for offences having been committed in the same transaction and on the basis of the same evidenceand if one of them is acquitted for whatever may be the reason and the other is con victed, then it will create an anomalous position in law and is likely to shake the confidence of the people in the administration of justice. Justice is not only to be done but also seem to be done. The principle of stare decsis will apply and the conviction of other accused cannot be sustained. " (Pritam Singh v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 415 has also been relied upon in the Diwan Singhs case (supra ). 13. In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order are set aside. The accused Murli and Sheo Nandan Singh are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. They need not surrender. Appeal allowed. .