KUNDAN SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by Thakur Prasad, Ramji, Kashi Prasad, Lalji Lal and Chhannu Lal alias Virendra Prasad Lal against the judgment and order dated 17/7/1979, passed by Sri S. S. Gupta, the then IVth Additional Sessions Judge Varanasi, in S. T. No. 238 of 1976, whereby the appellants have been convicted under section 307/149 I. P. C. and sentenced to five years R. I. The appellants have also been convicted under sections 332/149 and sentenced to one Years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200. 00 each. Appellants Thakur Prasad, Kashi Prasad Lal, Chhannu Lal alias Virendra Prasad Lal and Lalji Lal have been further convicted under section 225/149 I. P. C. and. sentenced to one years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200. 00, each, while appellant Ramji has been further convicted under section 224 I. P. C. and sentenced to 6,months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100. 00 and all the appellants have also been further convicted under section 147 I. P. C. and sentenced to 6 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100. 00, each. In default of the payment of fine of Rs. 200. 00 each, for each of the offence imposed on them they have also been directed to further undergo R. I. for two months each, directing all the sentences to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that Sri Jagarnath Pandey, A. S. I. , Police Station Bargaon, Distt. Varanasi at about 7. 30 A. M. on 10/8/1975 had gone to Sonpurwa in connection with the investigation of a case under section 323/427 I. P. C. in the company of constables Uma Shanker Pandey and Chhavinath Singh. On reaching village Sonpurwa at about 12. 00 noon, he got an information that Ramji Lal, who was wanted in a theft case, was present along with 2 or 4 companions on his tube well in village Dayalpur. Alongwith Uma Shanker and Chhavinath constables the A. S. I. started for village Dayalpur via Simraha for effecting arrest of Ramji Lal a wanted accused. In village Simraha, two constables Amresh Singh and Awadh Narain Singh met them and they also accompanied them. These two constables Amresh Singh and Awadh Narain Singh were armed with rifles and muskets. Alongwith Uma Shanker and Chhavinath constables the A. S. I. started for village Dayalpur via Simraha for effecting arrest of Ramji Lal a wanted accused. In village Simraha, two constables Amresh Singh and Awadh Narain Singh met them and they also accompanied them. These two constables Amresh Singh and Awadh Narain Singh were armed with rifles and muskets. A. S. I. Jagarnath Pandey along with these four constables reached village Dayalpur where they got an information that Ramji Lal along with his two companions was present on the pumping set Then the police party proceeded towards the pumping set and when they were at a distance of 40 or 50 steps from the tube well, Ramji Lal along with his companions started running away, but Ramji Lal was arrested after giving chase and inflicting some injuries on his person. However his companions succeeded in making good their escape. After the arrest, Ramji Lal told the A. S. I. that the door of his pumping set was open, let it be locked and the key sent to village and, thereafter, he would accompany them in the place where ever they liked. When he was going towards the pumping set, about 14 or 15 persons came from the side of village Durjanpur making noise and they wanted Ramji Lal to be released. At that time Thakur Prasad, Kashi Prasad Lal, Chhannu alias Virendra Prasad Lal and Lalji were armed with lathis, while Gulab Shanker Singh, Vijai Shanker Singh, Bechan Singh, Ram Sagar Singh, Ghamandi Ram Yadav and 4 or 5 others whose name they did not know were empty handed. When the police party did not agree to set Ramji Lal at liberty the villagers surrounded them and exhorted to assault the police people get Ramji Lal released and they tried to get Ramji Lal freed forcibly. The persons who were empty handed took the pieces of Bomboos and the persons who were armed with lathis began to assault them. Thankur Prasad gave a lathi blow on the head of A. S. I. , Jagarnath Pandey, who fell down on the ground and he became unconscious. It is further said that the accused party tried to throw the A. S. I. into a well and in that bid they dragged him, after assaulting constable Amresh Singh with lathis and pieces of Bamboos. It is further said that the accused party tried to throw the A. S. I. into a well and in that bid they dragged him, after assaulting constable Amresh Singh with lathis and pieces of Bamboos. The constables who were armed with guns challenged to leave the A. S. I otherwise the shot will be fired. Gulab Shankar Singh co-accused told that police had got no power or right to shoot with guns and asked his companions to throw the A. S. I. into the well. Amresh Singh finding no other way, fired a shot which hit Thakur Prasad Lal, appellant as a result of which he fell down. Meanwhile Kashi Nath Lal gave a lathi blow on the gun of Amresh Singh and the gun became out of order. After firing the accused persons took away Thakur Prasad Lal and got Ramji Lal freed. Amongst the assailants accused Thakur Prasad Lal, Kashi Nath Lal, Ramji Lal, Chhannu Lal, Gulab Shanker Singh, Lalji Lal, Bechan Singh, Ghamandi Ram Yadav, Vijai Shanker Singh and Ram Sagar Singh were recognized. Rest of the persons were also identified. The incident is said to have been witnessed by Han Shanker Chaubey and Ram Mani Singh residents of village Mahimapur, Shiv Narain Upadhyay of village Tilkar, Damodar Mishra and Shyam Bali Mishra residents of village Mahine, Uma Shanker Singh and Kamla Singh of village Dayalpur, who are said to have arrived at the scene of the occurrence. Some persons arc said to have taken the A. S. I. and constable Amresh Singh on cot to the hospital of Beraon. Constable Chhavinath Singh was also in the company of A. S. I. Constable Uma Shanker Pandey brought the gun and cartridges of Amresh Singh along with constable Avadh Narain Singh. The F. I. R. of the occurrence was lodged at 5. 30 P. M. on 10. 8. 1975 by Constable Uma Shanker Pandey at Police Station Bargaon, Distt. Varanasi. The distance of the place of occurrence from the police station is about 8 miles. The injuries of Jagarnath Pandey, A. S. I. were examined at 5. 30 P. M. on 10. 8. 1975, while the injuries of Amresh Singh were examined at 6. 00 P. M. on 10. 8. 1975. ( 3 ) THE Doctor found following injuries on the person of Jagarnath Pandey:1. Lacerated wound 4 x 3/4 x bone left side scalp. 2. 30 P. M. on 10. 8. 1975, while the injuries of Amresh Singh were examined at 6. 00 P. M. on 10. 8. 1975. ( 3 ) THE Doctor found following injuries on the person of Jagarnath Pandey:1. Lacerated wound 4 x 3/4 x bone left side scalp. 2. Lacerated wound 2 x i" x bone left side forehead. 3. Haematoma 4" x 3" right side scalp. ( 4 ) THE Doctor found following injuries on the person of Amresh Singh:1. Contused wound 3-1/4 x 1/4 x bone middle of scalp. 2. Contused wound 2-1/2 x 1/4 x bone over left side scalp. 3. Swelling 2 x 1-1/2 Lt. thumb. 4. Contusion (red) 2-1/2 xl back of upper part of Lt. forearm. 5. Contusion (red) 2-1/2 xl Rt. Side back upper part. 6. Contusion (red) 3 x 1-1/2 Rt. Side back lower part. 7. Contusion (red) 2 x i" left side wrist. 8. Contusion (red) 2-1/2 x 1-1/4 Lt. buttock. ( 5 ) THE case was investigated by Hridayanand Mishra, Station Officer, Police Station Bargaon, Distt. Varanasi, who recorded the statements of P. W. 3. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared a site plan. He also prepared certain other recovery memos regarding blood-stained earth, simple earth, pieces of bamboos and bloodstained clothes of the injured persons. After completion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet against accused persons. ( 6 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined Uma Shanker Pandey Constable (P. W. 1), Amresh Singh Constable (P. W. 2), Kamla Singh (P. W. 3), Uma Shanker Singh (P. W. 4), Damodar Mishra (P. W. 5), Shyambali Mishra (P. W. 6) and Jagarnath Pandey, A. S. I. (P. W. 7) as witnesses of the factum of incident. Besides, Hridayanand Mishra, Station Officer, police Station Bargaon, who investigated the case, and Doctor, Mehdi Hasan (P. W. 9), who medically examined Jagarnath Pandey A. S. I. and Amresh Singh Constable were also examined to prove the prosecution case. ( 7 ) THE accused persons denied the prosecution version. Thakur Prasad stated in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. Besides, Hridayanand Mishra, Station Officer, police Station Bargaon, who investigated the case, and Doctor, Mehdi Hasan (P. W. 9), who medically examined Jagarnath Pandey A. S. I. and Amresh Singh Constable were also examined to prove the prosecution case. ( 7 ) THE accused persons denied the prosecution version. Thakur Prasad stated in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. that on the day and at the time of occurrence, Police personnel consisting of Jagarnath Pandey, A. S. I. , Constables Uma Shanker Pandey, Avadh Narain Singh Amresh Singh and Chhavinath Singh came at his house and inquired about Ramji accused from his mother Smt. Hubraji who replied that he was not available there and had gone somewhere Jagarnath Pandey, A. S. I. asked her to call Ramji else she will be taken to police station. Thereupon the mother told that he was not a dacoit or miscreant. The police personnel then abused her and Uma Shanker Pandey constable gave a danda blow on the wrist as a result of which her hand fractured. Meanwhile, his brother Kashi Prasad reached there to rescue her and objected to the beating of his mother. The police personnel began to assault him also. Then Thakur Prasad reached there and he also wanted to rescue him but he too was beaten with the lathi and danda. Meanwhile Ramji also reached there but he was also beaten by the police there. In order to save his mother and brother Thakur Prasad and his brother Lalji wielded lathis in defence and the police personnel also sustained injuries as a result thereof. At the instigation of Jagarnath Pandey, Amresh Singh constable fired a shot and in that regard a case has been registered against them. Thakur Prasad got himself and others medically examined at Jaunpur where he also lodged a report of the incident. According to that report no incident had taken place at the pumping set and in order to save themselves the police personnel got a false case against them. Ramji Lal in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. He was not present at the scene of occurrence. Kashi Prasad Lal stated in his statement under section 313 Cr. Ramji Lal in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. He was not present at the scene of occurrence. Kashi Prasad Lal stated in his statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. that tile police assaulted him and his mother and his brother Thakur Prasad and Lalji Lal in right of private defence, wielded lath is as stated by his brother Thakur Prasad. Lalji Lal stated in his statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. that he and Thakur Prasad wielded lath is in order to save his mother himself and brother as stated by Thakur Prasad. Chhannu Lal alias Virendra Prasad Lal stated in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. that he was not present at the scene of occurrence and he was studying in Polytechnic at Handia, Distt. Allahabad. He has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity and the witnesses have falsely deposed against him due to pressure of police. Ram Milan Singh was examined as D. W. 1 in defence who stated that the incident took place at the house of Thakur Prasad at about 2. 00p. M. A. S. I. and four constables reached there and asked from Smt. Hubraji the where about of Ramji accused. She replied that he would be anywhere. Why were they searching for him. The A. S. I. told her to bring him otherwise she will be taken to the police station. Smt. Hubraji remonstrated saying was he a thief or dacoit. Thereupon the A. S. I. abused her und one or the constables gave a danda blow on her hand and her wrist had broken as a result thereof. Kashi Prasad. brother of Thakur Prasad, reached there. He protested and scolded the A. S. I. and police constables. The A. S. I. assaulted Kashi Prasad with a danda. Lalji and his brother Thakur Prasad also reached there. The police abused them also and assaulted with dandas and then Lalji and Thakur Prasad too wielded lathis in self defence. At the exhortation of A. S. I. one of the constables fired a shot at Thakur Prasad and he sustained a gun shot injury. After the Marpeet was over, the police personnel went to village Dayalpur via pumping set of Ramji Lal. The defence also examined Dr. At the exhortation of A. S. I. one of the constables fired a shot at Thakur Prasad and he sustained a gun shot injury. After the Marpeet was over, the police personnel went to village Dayalpur via pumping set of Ramji Lal. The defence also examined Dr. Udai Singh, Senior Surgeon of District Hospital, Gaunpur who examined the injuries of Smt. Hubraji and found the following injuries on her person:1. Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on the dorsum of Rt. fore arm with swelling 7 cm x 5 cm around it, 5 cm above the wrist joint, scab found on the abrasion which would detached easily. 2. Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on the lateral surface of Rt. Foot 4 cm below the Rt. ankle joint septice scab found on abrasion which could easily be detached. The Doctor also got X-ray of the injury of Smt. Hubraji and found radious bone fracture. The defence also filed the injury reports of Kashi Prasad Lal and Thakur Prasad. On the person of Kashi Prasad Lal and Thakur Prasad, the following injuries were found Injuries of Kashi Prasad Lal 1. Lacerated wound size 4-1/2 cm x 5 cm into scalp deep about 5 cm above the posterior occipital patubarance. 2. Lacerated wound size about 2. 5 cm x 1/2 cm into scalp deep about 10 cm above Lt ear. 3. Lacerated wound size 6 cm x 1/2 cm on the Lt. scalp x scalp deep about 5 cm Lt. eye brow. 4. Traumatic swelling 5 cm x 4 cm on the Lt. wrist joint lower two third of Lt. fore arm. 5. Traumatic swelling about 3 cm x 2 cm on the lower two third portion of Rt. fore arm. 6. Contusion size about 13 cm x 2 cm on the middle of back 8 cm above the lower angle of scapula. Injuries of Thakur Prasad 1. Fore arm wound size about 5 cm x 5 cm on the iliac region on lower abdomen 10 cm umbilical region, blackening of margin is present. 2. Fire-arm wound size 6 cm x 3. 5 cm x bone deep on Lt. lip margin of wound is lacerated and inverted blackening of margins are present, wound is present about 12 cm below anterior superior iliac spine. 3. 2. Fire-arm wound size 6 cm x 3. 5 cm x bone deep on Lt. lip margin of wound is lacerated and inverted blackening of margins are present, wound is present about 12 cm below anterior superior iliac spine. 3. A lacerated wound size 2 cm x 3 cm on the bone deep on the middle finger on lind phalynx of Lt. side. 4. Traumatic swelling of whole of Lt. middle finger. 5. Lacerated wound size about 5 cm xl cm on the Rt. side of scalp, scalp deep about 8 cm above the Rt. ear. 6. A lacerated wound size 5 cm x 1 cm scalp deep on the left side about 7 cm above Lt. ear. 7. Tenderness on the Lt. knee joint. ( 8 ) OTHER co-accused Gulab Shanker Singh, Bechan Singh, Vijai Shanker, Ghamandi Ram and Ram Sagar took a different stand in defence and they adduced evidence that mother of accused Gulab Shanker Singh had died on 9-8-1975 and she was cremated at Manikarnika Ghat, Varanasi on 10- 8-1975, which was evidence from the certified copy of the death register (Ext. Kha-9 ). The factum of death of the mother of the accused Gulab Shanker Singh was proved by Ram Milan D. W. 1. The trial Judge found false case made out against the co-accused Gulab Shanker Singh, Bechan Singh, Vijai Shanker, Ghamandi Ram and Ram Sagar. In the absence of any independent corroborative evidence the statement of the public witnesses and circumstances pointed out, that the prosecution version did not appear to be reliable and probability of the defence version being true could not be ruled out. But the Trial Judge after considering the evidence on record found the appellants guilty on he offences charged with and convicted and sentenced them, as stated above. ( 9 ) IN the present case the prosecution examined public witnesses Kamla Singh, Uma Shanker Singh, Damodar Mishra and Shyam Bali Mishra as P. W. 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively but they have been declared hostile as none of them supported the prosecution version. The whole case rests on the evidence of Uma Shanker Pandey and Amresh Singh constables and A. S. I. Jagarnath Pandey as police personnel. The whole case rests on the evidence of Uma Shanker Pandey and Amresh Singh constables and A. S. I. Jagarnath Pandey as police personnel. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that it is a case in which five persons namely, Gulab Shanker Singh, Bechan Singh, Vijai Shanker Singh, Ghamandi Ram and Ram Sagar have been falsely implicated who were not actually present at the scene of occurrence. The prosecution has wrongly assigned specific part of exhortation to Gulab Shanker Singh upon which the other co-accused are aid to have assaulted the police personnel. The evidence of these three witnesses has been found to be false in respect of five aforesaid co-accused persons, and their evidence does not find corroboration from any independent evidence; ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant argued that according to the prosecution the A. S. I. and four constable arrested Lalat some distance near the pumping set of Ramji Lal where upon Ramji Lal asked the police persons to carry him to the pumping set as the doors of the pumping set were lying open. He requested them to permit him to lock the tube well and to send the key to his house. Thereafter, he may be taken anywhere. As soon as they reached at the pumping set, 14 or 15 persons armed with lathis and dandas reached there and ,tried to get Ramji Lal freed. They besieged the police personnel and began to assault them with lathis and the pieces of Bamboos. Thakur Prasad gave a lathi blow on the head of A. S. I. Chhannu Lal also gave a lathi blow on Amresh Singh when the A. S. I. fell down and, thereafter, they started to take the A. S. I. for throwing him into a well. The constable who were armed with guns asked them to leave the A. S. I. otherwise they will shoot them with their guns, whereupon Gulab Shankar Singh told that the police had got no right or power to fire shots. Amresh Singh then fired a shot at Thakur Prasad Lal as a result of which he sustained gun shot injury. Meanwhile, Kashi Nath struck lathi on the gun of Amresh Singh and gun went out of order and thus the accused got Ramji Lal freed. Amresh Singh then fired a shot at Thakur Prasad Lal as a result of which he sustained gun shot injury. Meanwhile, Kashi Nath struck lathi on the gun of Amresh Singh and gun went out of order and thus the accused got Ramji Lal freed. Had the A. S. I. not been taken for throwing into the well by the accused persons and the co-accused Gulab Shanker Singh would not have exhorted the other accused persons constable Amresh Singh would not have fired shot at Thakur Prasad. But the court below has found that Gulab Shanker Singh and other 4 co-accused persons were not present at the scene of occurrence. The prosecution version that the A. S. I. was being taken by the accused persons for being thrown into the well at the exhortation of Gulab Shanker Singh is false. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the incident did not take place as in the manner alleged by the prosecution, but it took place in the manner alleged by the defence and that it is more probable that the incident had taken place in the manner alleged by the defence and not in the manner of prosecution. The prosecution is also guilty of concealing the injuries sustained on the person of Smt. Hubraji, Kashi Prasad and Thakur Prasad. ( 12 ) I throughly examined the evidence on record. The P. W. 1 Uma Shanker Pandey, constable stated that the time when A. S. I. Jagarnath Pandey and other constables with Ramji Lal reached near his pumping set, 14 or 15 persons armed with lathis came from the side of the village Durjanpur and, tried to get Ramji Lal freed from their custody. They were surrounded by accused persons. They also exhorted to get Ramji Lal rescued after assaulting them. Some of the accused persons had lathis and some picked up pieces of bamboos and started assaulting the police personnel. Thakur Prasad gave lathi blow on the head of A. S. I He fell down and became unconscious. Chhannu Lal gave a lathi blow to Amresh Singh constable and he also fell down. Thereafter, they were taking A. S. I. to throw him into the well and it was only then that the constables who were armed with guns challenged to leave the A. S. I. or else they will fire. Chhannu Lal gave a lathi blow to Amresh Singh constable and he also fell down. Thereafter, they were taking A. S. I. to throw him into the well and it was only then that the constables who were armed with guns challenged to leave the A. S. I. or else they will fire. But Gulab Shanker Singh said that police had no power to fire shot and exhorted other persons to throw the A. S. I. into the well. Then Amresh Singh fired a shot which hit Thakur Prasad Lal. Kashi Prasad gave a lathi blow on the gun of Amresh Singh and the gun became out of order. The other accused had surrounded the other constable Awadh Narain Singh who also had gun and did not use it. The incident was seen by several persons of villages Mahimapur, Mahine and Dayalpur, but they did not go to the place of occurrence due to fear. The A. S. I. was sent to hospital on a cot. Similar statement was made by constable Amresh Singh and A. S. I. Jagarnath Pandey. ( 13 ) FIRST of all have to see whether the prosecution has come with cleaned hands. In the present case three persons namely Smt. Hubraji, Kashi Prasad and Thakur Prasad sustained injuries. P. W. 1 Uma Shanker Pandey denied the suggestion of the defence that the police reached at the house of Thakur Prasad where they enquired the where about of Ramji Lal from his mother. He also denied the suggestion that on protest by Smt. Hubraji, the A. S. I. abused her and Uma Shanker Pandey gave a danda blow on her hand resulting in the fracture of wrist. He also denied the suggestion of the defence that Thakur Prasad and Lalji Prasad reached there and asked them as to why they beat their mother and they were also assaulted by the police and Thakur Prasad and Lalji Prasad wielded lathis in self defence as also to save their mother. P. W. 2 Amresh Singh stated that he did not see any injury on the person of Kashi Prasad. He also did not see any injury on the person of Smt. Hubraji but in his statement he had admitted that Smt. Hubraji also reached there. P. W. 2 Amresh Singh stated that he did not see any injury on the person of Kashi Prasad. He also did not see any injury on the person of Smt. Hubraji but in his statement he had admitted that Smt. Hubraji also reached there. It is also admitted by him that Ramji Lal was in the custody of Uma Shankar and Chhavinath constable and the accused persons surrounded them but they had not inflicted any injury on their person. P. W. 7 Jagamath Pandey A. S. I. denied the presence of Smt. Hubraji at the place of occurrence. Even it is also stated by him that there was no lady at the place of occurrence. He also denied any injury on the person of Kashi Prasad and Thakur Prasad. He also stated that Kashi Prasad, Thakur Prasad and Smt. Hubraji were not assaulted by any person. It is not mentioned in the F. I. R. that constables and S. I. had inflicted any injury on any injured persons, namely, Smt. Hubraji, Thakur Prasad and Kashi Prasad, on the defence side, though P. W. 1 Uma Shanker Pandey for the first lime stated that he saw the injury on the person of Kashi Prasad and Lalji and these injuries were inflicted by A. S. I. Jagamath Pandey, constable Amresh Singh and Chhavinath Singh. Thakur Prasad also sustained gun shot and lathi injuries. The lathi injuries of Thakur Prasad have not been explained at all by any of the witnesses as to how he sustained those injuries. Thus in my opinion the prosecution has not satisfactorily explained the injuries or 3 persons on the side of defence. Some of the witnesses say that Smt. Hubraji was not present at the scene of occurrence but others admitted the presence of Smt. Hubraji at the scene of the occurrence and her injuries not seen by them. Lathi injuries of Thakur Prasad have also not been explained by the witnesses as to how he sustained those injuries. Some of the witnesses say that Smt. Hubraji was not present at the scene of occurrence but others admitted the presence of Smt. Hubraji at the scene of the occurrence and her injuries not seen by them. Lathi injuries of Thakur Prasad have also not been explained by the witnesses as to how he sustained those injuries. ( 14 ) SO far as the prosecution version that the A. S. I. was given lathi blows and he was taken to the well for throwing him therein, on the instigation of Gulab Shanker Singh who also told at that time that the Police had no right or power to fire shot and the constable Amresh Singh challenged the accused persons and asked them to leave A. S. I. Jagarnath Pandey otherwise the shots will be fired is concerned, if the presence of Gulab Shanker Singh at the scene of occurrence was found to be false on the basis of evidence then this portion of the prosecution version is also false and cannot be said to have been proved by the prosecution. At this stage, it cannot be said that how and at what stage constable fired shot towards the accused Thakur Prasad. ( 15 ) NOW I have to see whether the accused persons had reached the placed of incident to get Ramji Lal freed from the clutches of the police, when the police had arrested Ramji Lal and the accused persons had surrounded them and they were assaulted for that purpose as alleged by the prosecution. In this respect the statement of P. W. 2 Amresh Singh constable may be referred where he stated that the accused Ramji Lal was in custody of constables Uma Shanker Pandey and Chhavinath at that time when the accused persons wielded lath is and inflicted injuries on the police personnel. But the prosecution has not stated at all that Uma Shanker and Chhavinath constables, in whose custody Ramji Lal was were beaten by accused persons in order to get him released from their custody and none of the constables Uma Shanker and Chhavinath was inflicted any injury in the incident. The main purpose of the assembly is said that the accused persons wanted to get released Ramji Lal accused from the custody of the police. The accused persons may have assaulted constables Chhavinath, Uma Shanker for getting the accused Ramji Lal released. The main purpose of the assembly is said that the accused persons wanted to get released Ramji Lal accused from the custody of the police. The accused persons may have assaulted constables Chhavinath, Uma Shanker for getting the accused Ramji Lal released. Thus is appears that the prosecution version that the accused persons had reached at the police where Ramji Lal was in custody and assaulted police personnel for that purpose does not appear to be truthful. On the other hand, the defence version appears to be more probable that Smt. Hubraji was assaulted by some of the constables at the house of Thakur Prasad where Thakur Prasad and Kashi Prasad intervened and they were assaulted by the police personnel. In defence the accused persons admittedly assaulted the constable Amresh Singh and A. S. I. Jagarnath Pandey and in the last the constable Amresh Singh also fired a shot appears to be probable and correct version of the incident In this context it is also stated that some of the persons were empty handed at the time of incident and took up bamboo pieces for assaulting the police men. If they had come for getting released Ramji Lal there was no sense in their coming empty handed at the place of occurrence and in my opinion the incident had not taken place at the pumping set of Ramji Lal. ( 16 ) THE prosecution version that the accused Ramji Lal ran away from the scene on seeing the police persons who chased him and inflicted necessary injuries-and then they got him arrested also does not appear to be probable in as much as the legs of Ramji Lal were admittedly defective, being bent backward and he could not run so fast and easily that the police had to chase him. I have to examine the prosecution version that Ramji Lal was wanted as an accused in a theft case. P. W. 7 Jagarnath Pandey A. S. I. deposed that he received information in village Sonepurwa about the presence of Ramji Lal and his companions at his tubewell. He along with two constables Uma Shanker and Chhavinath proceeded to that village Durajanpur and in the way he also picked up two constables Amresh Singh and Awadh Narain Singh who were on patrolling duty in village Simraha. He along with two constables Uma Shanker and Chhavinath proceeded to that village Durajanpur and in the way he also picked up two constables Amresh Singh and Awadh Narain Singh who were on patrolling duty in village Simraha. He admitted that he had not insisted any constables for the arrest of Ramji Lal but all the local constables were given written order for the arrest of Ramji Lal. In the present case no such documentary proof regarding such written order has been filed by the prosecution. He also showed ignorance about the entry of such written order in the G. D; of the police station. He stated that, he investigated the case of Ramji Lal. He admitted that he did not receive any order or non-bailable warrant or any proceeding under section 82/83 Cr. P. C. from the court for the arrest of Ramji Lal. The prosecution has not filed any documentary evidence regarding the complicity of Ramji Lal in any theft case. Thus it is also doubtful whether Ramji Lal was wanted by the police in any case and the police had gone to arrest him in the village on the date of occurrence. The P. Ws. could not state the participation for knowing the accused persons. He was put a question whether how he knew the brothers of Ramji Lal and he could not know at what time he met Ramji Lal. He could not say what Vijai Shanker was doing. He did not know whether Vijai Shanker was a student of High School. He did not know the side of the Vijai Shankers house in the village. He could not say about the houses of Bechan Singh, Ghamandi Ram and Ram Sagar in the village. P. W. 2 Amresh Singh denied the suggestion of the defence that he did not know the accused persons and he deposed against them at the incident of other persons. He could not say whether Gulab Shanker Singh was in service or not. P. W. 7 Jagarnath Pandey stated that there was abadi of 100 houses of village Durjanpur but he could not say which of the accused resided at which place. He had no particulars prior to the incident to go at the house of any of the accused persons. P. W. 7 Jagarnath Pandey stated that there was abadi of 100 houses of village Durjanpur but he could not say which of the accused resided at which place. He had no particulars prior to the incident to go at the house of any of the accused persons. He did not know the name of Sabhapati of village Durajanpur and he did not know the name of Chaukidar of the village. He did not know the name of any accused percentage. He did not know the number of brothers of any accused person and he also did not know as to which of the accused was doing what but he knew what Thakur Prasad, Gulab Shanker Singh, Ramji Lal and Chhannu Lal were doing. He did nm know the names of other residents of village Durjanpur. Some time he knew the names of the accused persons from other persons and he could not show any reason for knowing the. names of accused persons. P. W. 2 Amresh Singh pointed out towards another accused alleging that he was Ramji Lal. He also stated that the person to whom he pointed out was not Ramji Lal present at the scene of occurrence. He could not say the pox-pilled face of Chhannu Lal. ( 17 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid deposition of the P. W. 3, it is also doubtful that the police witnesses stated above, knew the accused persons prior to the incident. The prosecution case was found to be doubtful in respect of five co-accused who have been acquitted by trial court. The remaining evidence of the witnesses does not find independent corroboration in order to prove the participation of the accused persons in the manner alleged by the prosecution. The medical evidence does not corroborate oral testimony of the witnesses on the other hand even according to the prosecution Amresh Singh constable fired only shot but Kashi Prasad sustained two injuries on front of abdomen and the other on hip and those injuries could not appear to have been inflicted by one single shot. The medical evidence does not corroborate oral testimony of the witnesses on the other hand even according to the prosecution Amresh Singh constable fired only shot but Kashi Prasad sustained two injuries on front of abdomen and the other on hip and those injuries could not appear to have been inflicted by one single shot. The motive of the accused persons for assaulting police men does not appear to be correct as according to the prosecution case the accused persons had surrounded and assaulted the constables Amresh Singh and A. S. I. Jagarnath Pandey for getting Ramji Lal released from the custody of the police but the police persons in whose custody Ramji Lal was, were not assaulted by any of the accused persons and the evidence of the police witnesses does not appear to be reliable and credible for sustaining the accused appellants. The prosecution has failed to prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt to prove the charges levelled against the accused persons. ( 18 ) CONSEQUENTLY the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The convictions and sentences passed by Trial Judge, are set aside. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender, their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal allowed.