JUDGMENT 1. - These two revision petitions arise out of the judgment passed by the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act cum Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. 2. The petitioners, alongwith four other accused, were tried by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325 and 341/149 IPC. The case of the prosecution is that on March 7, 1979, the Tehsildar, Jodhpur, visited village Boranada and instructed the Sarpanch of this village to hold a meeting of the Panchayat to consider the case of encroachment made by certain persons over the Gochar land. The Ward Panch and the Sarpanch, therefore, directed to convene a meeting on March 9/1979, at 10.00 pm. Some altercation took-place between Khinya Ram and Rama Ram on the one side and Jai Ram on the other side. In the morning, at about 10.00 a m., when Jai Ram (PW8), alongwith PW 2 Kharta Ram Sarpanch and PW 7 Narain Lai. was going towards the Panchayat Bhawan to attend the meeting and when they reached near the house of one Arjun Dhadhi, the accused came armed with Lathis, Dhariya and Kawadiya and encircled Jai Rani and gave beating to him. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined ten witnesses. The accused, in support of their case, also, examined DW 1 Naresh Kumar the investigating officer, who was not produced by the prosecution. The learned Magistrate, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused Bhalla Ram, Salu Ram, Raja Ram, Magha Ram, Dhalla Ram, Basti Ram, Sanwal Ram, Birma Ram & Moti Ram for the offences under Sections 147, 323 and 341 IPC. Accused Magha Ram and Moti Ram were further convicted and sentenced by him for the offence under Section 324 IPC while the remaining seven accused were convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 324/149 IPC. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated April 5, 1989, passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jodhpur District Jodhpur, the accused-petitioners preferred appeals before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, which were transferred to the Court of the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act cum Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, for disposal. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated April 5, 1989, passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jodhpur District Jodhpur, the accused-petitioners preferred appeals before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, which were transferred to the Court of the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act cum Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, for disposal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated September 18, 1990, allowed the appeals in part, maintained the order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, but sentenced accused Moti Ram, Dhalla Ram, Bhalla Ram, Birma Ram and Mangha Ram to the imprisonment already undergone by them and gave the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to accused Salu Ram, Raju Ram, Basti Ram and Sanwal Ram. Aggrieved with the judgment dated September 18, 1990, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raju Ram and Salu Ram preferred the revision petition, which is registered as : S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 171 of 1990. Accused Dhalla Ram, Moti Ram and Magga Ram preferred the revision petition through jail, which is registered as : S.B. Criminal (Jail) Revision Petition No 171 of 1991. Accused Bhalla Ram, Birma Ram, Basti Ram and Sanwal Ram did not prefer any revision petition before this Court but because the other accused persons have preferred the revision petitions and the incident is the same in which these four accused and the present petitioners are involved, therefore, their case is, also, being considered. 3. The nature of evidence, produced by the prosecution, consists of the evidence of three eye witnesses, namely, PW 8 Jai Ram (the injured), PW 2 Kharta Ram the Sarpanch and PW 7 Narain Lai. This evidence of the eye witnesses is sought to be corroborated by PW 6 Loon Das, who was produced to show that on March 7, 1979, the Tehsildar, Jodhpur, came in the village and asked Jai Ram and other Panchas to pass a resolution for clearing the encroachment and send it to him. He has further submitted that on that day, an altercation took-place between Jai Ram on the one side and Rama Ram on the other side and after five-seven days of this altercation, the incident took-place. He has further submitted that on that day, an altercation took-place between Jai Ram on the one side and Rama Ram on the other side and after five-seven days of this altercation, the incident took-place. PW 7 Mangla Ram is the witness who was sitting on the shop in the Chauhta and saw Jai Ram, Kharta Ram and Narain Lal going towards the Panchayat Bhawan to attend the meeting and after sometime, he heard the noise and went to the scene of the occurrence near the house of Arjun Dhadhi and saw the nine accused persons armed with Lathis except accused Mangla Ram, who was armed with Dhariya, He, also, saw Jai Ram laying injured on the ground and PW 2 Kharta Ram was standing by his side. PW 7 Narain Lal was, also, present there. 4. PW 1 Raju Ram and PW 3 Teja Ram are the two Motbir witnesses PW 1 Raju Ram is a witness to the site plan while PW 3 Teja Ram is a Motbir witness of the recoveries. PW 4 Dr. N.S. Kothari was the Medical Jurist, who examined the injuries of Jai Ram and PW 9 Dr. Dileep Kumar was the Radiologist at the relevant time, who took the X-ray and found a fracture of the nasal bone of Jai Ram PW 5 Om Prakash Puri is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who at the instance of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, conducted the investigation at the initial stage. 5. The prosecution rests mainly of the evidence of the three eye witnesses, viz., PW 2 Kharta Ram Sarpanch, PW 7 Narain Lal and PW 8 Jai Ram the injured. PW 2 Kharta Ram has stated that about five years before, he was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. Boranada, and Jai Ram and Bhagwana Ram were the Panchas. The Tehsildar, Jodhpur, came to the village as on the Gochar land of the Gram Panchayat, Khinya Ram and Rama Ram had taken illegal possession. The Tehsildar told them to pass a resolution in the meeting and send the same to him. For that purpose, they fixed the meeting on 9th. In the morning of 9th March, 1979, at about 10:00 a.m. when he, alongwith Narain Lal and Jai Ram, was going to the Panchayat Bhawan, near the house of Arjun Dhadhi, all these accused were standing. For that purpose, they fixed the meeting on 9th. In the morning of 9th March, 1979, at about 10:00 a.m. when he, alongwith Narain Lal and Jai Ram, was going to the Panchayat Bhawan, near the house of Arjun Dhadhi, all these accused were standing. Accused Bhalla Ram asked that enemies are going, and thereupon all the accused encircled Jai Ram. Accused Magha Ram inflicted an injury with the Dhariya on the fore-head of Jai Ram, accused Moti Ram inflicted injury with axe on the right thumb; accused Bhalla thereafter inflicted injury with Lathi. All the other accused, who were armed with Lathis, started giving beating to Jai Ram, who received injuries on various parts of his body. This witness has been cross-examined by the defence. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that the meeting was not held on account of the altercation between Rama Ram and Jai Ram. He has, also, admitted in the cross-examination that he is distantly related to injured Jai Ram. He has, also, admitted that near the place where the incident took place, there is the house of Arjun Dhadhi and in front of the house of Arjun Dhadhi, there is the house of Koopa Ram. He has, also, admitted that there are houses of Naina Ram, Basti Ram and Sanwal Ram near the place of the incident This witness is said to have accompanied injured Jai Ram and is related to him and was not on cordial terms with the accused party, but still he did not receive any injury. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused inflicted any injury to this witness or to the other witness Narain Lal (PW 7) If this witness would have been present then the accused would not have spared him, particularly when there was no personal grudge of the accused with injured Jai Ram and it was only on account of the encroachment over the Gochar Land of the Gram Panchayat that this incident took-place. The incident took-place in the locality where number of houses are situated and inhabited but none of the independent witness of the locality has been produced by the prosecution. The incident took-place in the locality where number of houses are situated and inhabited but none of the independent witness of the locality has been produced by the prosecution. This witness has, also, tried to make certain improvements in his statement from the statement given by this witness before the police and a close reading of the statement of this witness creates a doubt in the verasity of this witness. A minute description and a photographic version of the incident, given by this witness regarding infliction of the injuries by the accused to injured Jai Ram, create a doubt in the testimony of this witness In my view, this witness was not present at the scene of the occurrence when the incident took place and it seems that he came after the incident was over. 6. The second eye witness of the occurrence is PW 7 Narain Lai. He has, also, repeated the incident in the same manner as has been described by PW 2 Kharta Ram. It is not possible for a witness to have given such a minute and photographical details of the incident regarding infliction of the injuries by the accused to the injured Jai Ram, particularly when the accused were eight in number and according to the prosecution, they were inflicting the repeated blows. It is not possible for a person to notice which of the accused inflicted which of the injury with what type of weapon. Moreover this witness was, also, related to the injured Jai Ram, thorough in distant relation and he is the cousin of the injured Jai Ram. This witness had no business to go to attend the meeting of the Gram Panchayat. He has admitted that he was neither a Panch nor the Sarpanch nor, in any way, concerned with the meeting of the Gram Panchayat and as such there was no occasion for this witness to go to the Panchayat Bhawan along with Jai Ram and the presence of this witness at the scene of the occurrence, also, appears to be suspicious. This witness, it appears, came to the scence of the occurrence after the incident was over and took Jai Ram to the hospital and there the FIR was written by Kharta Ram Sarpanch and was produced before the Superintendent of Police at Jodhpur and thereafter this witness took the FIR to Police Station, Jhanwar, where he handed-over the same at 6.00 p m. in the evening. This witness, therefore, does not inspire confidence. 7. Then remains the evidence of PW 8 Jai Ram the injured himself. PW 8 Jai Ram has stated that accused Khinya Ram & Rama Ram made encroachment over the Gocharland of the Gram Panchayat and raised a Bada (cote) on this land. The Tehsildar, Jodhpur, came to the village and at that time Kharta Ram Sarpanch and he were present there. On enquiry by the Tehsildar, he and Kharta Ram told him that the Bada has been constructed by Khinya Ram and Rama Ram, upon which Khinya Ram and Rama Ram asked them why they had given their names and on this, some altercation took-place. The Tehsildar asked them to send the resolution of the Gram Panchayat and as such the meeting of the Gram Panchayat was to be convened on 9-3-79. Kharta Ram, Narain Lal and he were going to attend the meeting of the Panchayat and when they reached near the house of Arjun Dhadhi, accused Bhalla came and called his brothers and asked them to give beating to them, upon which accused Magha, Moti Ram, Dhalla Ram, Birma Ram, Salu Ram, Sanwat Ram, Basti Ram and Raju Ram came there. Magha Ram was armed with Dhariya, Bhalla Ram with Kulhari and the other accused were armed with Lathis. They all attacked him. Bhalla inflicted injury on his neck, Moti Ram inflicted injury with Kulhari on his fore-head. Moti Ram, thereafter, inflicted injury by Kulhari, which hit his right thumb when he raised his hand. Accused Raju Ram was armed with Lathi, who inflicted injury with Lathi on his nose. Accused Birma inflicted injury on his right shoulder. Accused Dhalla inflicted injury on his back, Sanwal Ram inflicted injury on his left ankle, Salu Ram inflicted injury on his right thigh, and Basti Ram inflicted injury on his pelvis region. He, thereafter, fell down and all the accused continued to inflict injuries on his person. Accused Birma inflicted injury on his right shoulder. Accused Dhalla inflicted injury on his back, Sanwal Ram inflicted injury on his left ankle, Salu Ram inflicted injury on his right thigh, and Basti Ram inflicted injury on his pelvis region. He, thereafter, fell down and all the accused continued to inflict injuries on his person. PW 2 Kharta Ram and PW 7 Narain Lal raised alarm, upon which Mangla Ram and Hagar Ram came there and all the accused ran away. This witness was being attacked by eight accused and according to this witness, all these accused repeated several blows. But on the person of this witness, there were only 17 injuries and except one, all the injuries are simple in nature. When eight accused persons who were armed with lathies, Dharias Kulahari according to this witness, were giving beating to this witness, who was wholly unarmed, then it is not expected that the injured would have received only 17 injuries, which are all simple in nature. This witness has, also, tried to give such a minute details and photographic version of the incident narrating the infliction of the injuries by a particular accused on a particular part of his body with a particular weapon. It is not expected from a person, who was being given beating by eight persons to say that which of the accused inflicted which of the in-I jury on what part of his body. The graphic description given by this witness raises a suspicion regarding the veracity of the statement of this witness. It is, no doubt, true that the injured received injuries at the hands of some accused persons and not by all the accused. There is a clear over-implication of the accused by the prosecution and in order to implicate all the members of the family of the accused, one injury by each of the accused has been assigned by each of the three eye witnesses. If the witness is found unreliable for some of the accused then it is not necessary that he is to be disbelieved towards the other part of the incident. Falsus in uno Falsus Omnibus is not the sound rule so far as the criminal jurisprudence is concerned. If the grain can be separated from the chaff, then the efforts should be made for it. Falsus in uno Falsus Omnibus is not the sound rule so far as the criminal jurisprudence is concerned. If the grain can be separated from the chaff, then the efforts should be made for it. But in the present case, the falsehood and the truth is so intermingled J that it cannot be separated. It is, no doubt, true that some of the accused, out of these nine accused, must have given beating to the injured Jai Ram, but who were those accused, cannot be said with certainty. The prosecution in order to implicate all the accused, assigned specific part of inflicted at least one injury by each accused at specified part of the body. Number of injuries found on the person of Jai Ram, their nature and the number of the accused involved, create a doubt in the truthfulness of the prosecution story. When the prosecution has tried to implicate innocent persons in the incident then in that circumstance, it is difficult to hold guilty all the accused persons for this incident. The independent witnesses, whose houses are situated near the place of the occurrence, have not been produced by the prosecution. It is not the case of the prosecution that those houses were not inhabited. When the inmates of those houses were living in their houses, situated near the place of the occurrence, then they could have lent support to the truthfulness of the prosecution case had they been produced, but they have not been produced by the prosecution and only the relative witnesses have been produced. PW 7-A Mangla Ram, who was sitting at the Chauhta and who had seen PW 2 Kharta Ram, PW 7 Narain Lal and PW 8 Jai Ram going towards the Panchayat Bhawan and who heard the noise and went to the scene of the occurrence afterwards and saw the accused standing there; also, appears to be a chance witness and the evidence of this witness, also, does not inspire confidence. The evidence of PW 6 Loon Das, who has been produced by the prosecution to prove the fact of meeting in the presence of the Tehsildar, also, does not inspire confidence. The over-all consideration of the evidence produced by the prosecution, does not inspire confidence and the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused-petitioners beyond a reasonable manner of doubt. The over-all consideration of the evidence produced by the prosecution, does not inspire confidence and the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused-petitioners beyond a reasonable manner of doubt. Further, the FIR in the present case appears to have been lodged after consultation. The injured was taken to the hospital and thereafter, after consultation, the report was written and produced before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur, and from there the report was sent to Police Station, Jhanwar and was lodged at about 6 00 p.m. in the evening. This, also, creates some suspicion. Even at this stage, every care was taken to implicate each and every accused and each accused was assigned a particular injury in order to fasten them with the aid of Section 149 IPC also. 8. The four accused, namely, Bhalla Ram, Birma Ram, Batti Ram and Sanwal Ram have not preferred any revision petition before this Court but this Court, in its power under Section 397/401 Cr. PC can suo moto look into the matter as the complete record of the case is before me and the other accused have already preferred revision petition and when on the consideration of the complete record, I am of the view that one case is made-out so far as the five accused are concerned and the case of the remaining accused, who have not filed any revision but their case is, also, similar to the case against the other accused who have preferred the revision petitions, and as such the relief prayed-for by these five accused-petitioners can, also, be granted to these remaining four accused, who have been convicted but did not prefer any revision While judging the propriety, correctness and legality of the order, passed by the learned lower Court under Section 397/401 Cr. PC, this Court has ample power to take into consideration the legality, correctness and propriety of the order qua the other accused, who have not preferred any revision petition, while considering the case of the other accused-petitioners, who have preferred revision petitions. 9. It is really very sad that the actual assailants remain unpunished though they have committed the offence, but have no alternative except to acquit the accused-persons as some innocent persons have been implicated by the prosecution. 9. It is really very sad that the actual assailants remain unpunished though they have committed the offence, but have no alternative except to acquit the accused-persons as some innocent persons have been implicated by the prosecution. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that a single innocent person should not be punished even if number of persons may be acquitted if their case cannot be separated. The persons, who are elected representatives of the public and are functioning as the Sarpanch and Panchas of the Gram Panchayat, in the present case, have made over implication and have tried to implicate some innocent persons in the crime. 10. In the result, I allow both the revision petitions set-aside the judgment dated September 18,1990, passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act cum Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, as well as of the judgment dated April 5, 1989, passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur District Jodhpur, convicting and sentencing the accused-petitioners and the co-accused Bhal Ram, Birma Ram, Basti Ram and Sanwal Ram, who have not preferred any revisioa and all the nine accused persons are acquitted of all the charges for which they were tried and convicted. Accused Salu Ram, Raju Ram and Sanwal Ram were given the benefit of probation and were sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. They have furnished personal and surety bonds in the amount of Rs. 2000/-for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for two years. Their bail-bonds are discharged- The order imposing fine against the accused is, also, set-aside and it is ordered that if the amount of fine has been recovered from them, then the same may be returned to the accused-persons.Revision allowed. *******