SURYA PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a Criminal Appeal against the Judgment and order dated 18. 7. 1979 passed by the then VII Addi. Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Session 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 thereunder. ( 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 animosity against Lal Bahadur and other members of his family. Lal Bahadur 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 Lal Bahadur aporehended danger to his life and, therefore he made up his mind to settle in village Gagsara where his brother Hardwari s Sasural was. It is further alleged that Lal Bahadur along with his brothers Hardwari, Put too Lal and borther-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 Lal was 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. Sunder Lal was 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 Put too Lal. They all raised alarm. But the above named accused persons started wielding lathis on Put too Lal indiscriminately. Hearing the alarm raised, Ram Das son of Khayali and many others of his village, while shorting rushed to the place of occurrence. Consequently the accused fled away leaving Put too Lal on the spot. Lal Bahadur took Put too 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 Shoo 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 Addi. 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 Lal in respect of the same incident the facts of which have been narrated above were tried separately in the earlier Session Trial No. 303 of 1975 wherein the then Learned VII Addi. Session 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 year and five years Rigorous Imprisonment there under. He further convicted Sunder Lal under section 148, I. P. C. and 307 read with section 149, I. P. C. and convicted him to two years and five years Rigorous Imprisonment respectively there under. 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 UP. 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 Addi. Sessions Judge and acquitted the co-accused Ram Sagar, Jagarnath and Sunder Lal of the charges leveled against them. 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 Addi. Sessions Judge and acquitted the co-accused Ram Sagar, Jagarnath and Sunder Lal of the charges leveled against them. A 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. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the entire record. There were only two witnesses Lal Bahadur and Puttoo Lal who was injured were examined in the aforesaid Session 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. Lal Bahadur and Puttoo Lal are real brothers as mentioned earlier: A perusal of the certified copy of the judgment of the appeal No. 2186 of 1977 would show that Lal Bahadur and Puttoo Lal both were disbelieved by the Honble High Court. ( 5 ) 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. Lal Bahadur has further stated that the accused fled away towards east after firing and beating Puttoo Lal. But Puttoo Lal has stated that they rail 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 demarcating line (Mend) in between. The field of Sangam Lal is towards north from the northern field of Balkoo Dhobi. According to the site plan the accused have been shown to have and away towards east through the Mend of the fields of Balkoo Dhobi. This is, what is also apparent from the statement of Lal Bahadur. In view of all this, the site does not find support from the statement of Puttoo Lal and 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. In view of all this, the site does not find support from the statement of Puttoo Lal and 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. ( 6 ) THE accused are alleged to have come from the northern side, Lal Bahadur, Puttoo Lal and 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 plate pabe. 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 cm. x 8 cm. fracture of the right lower humans of right upper arm with swelling of the elbow joint X-ray Adv. 4. Contusion of 8 cm. x 7 cm. at the upper third of the left forearm with fracture of both bones of left forearm X-ray Adv. 5. Contusion of 10 cm. x cm. at the back of the middle of the right thigh. 6. Abrasion of 2 cm. x 2 cm. at the right side of right knee joint. ( 7 ) CONTUSION of 7 cm. x 7 cm. at the right back chest 20 cm. below the shoulder. The Doctor concerned has described injuries No. 1 and 2 as having been caused by fire arm. There is no fire arm 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 fire arm injuries can not be said to have been caused in such a manner and under such circumstances as alleged by the prosecution. ( 8 ) IN view of what has been observed above the statement of Lal Bahadur and Puttoo Lal cannot be believed. They have however already been disbelieved by the Honble High Court vide its judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 2186 of 1977, Ram Sagar and others v. State of UP referred to earlier. ( 8 ) IN view of what has been observed above the statement of Lal Bahadur and Puttoo Lal cannot be believed. They have however already been disbelieved by the Honble High Court vide its judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 2186 of 1977, Ram Sagar and others v. State of UP referred to earlier. ( 9 ) 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 Shoo 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 contention finds full support from Diwan Singh v. State, wherein the following observations have been made: If two persons are prosecution, though separately, under the same charge for offences having been committed in the same transaction and on the basis of the same evidence, and if one of them is acquitted for whatever may be the reason and the other is convicted, 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 decisis will apply and the conviction of other accused cannot be sustained. T (Pritam Singh v. The State of Punjab, A. I. R. 1956 S. C. 415 has also been relied upon in the Diwan Singhs case (supra ). ( 10 ) IN the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order are set aside. The accused Murli and Shoo Nandan Singh are acquitted of the charges leveled against them. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. They need not surrender. Appeal allowed. .