JUDGMENT U.K. Varma, J. - This is an appeal which has been filed by the State of U P. against the judgment and order of Sri Ram Das Special Judge. Dacoity affected Area, Etah dated 20-5-87 acquitting the respondents Naresh, Suresh, Ramesh, Raj Bahadur Jagdish and Bahori Lal under Sections 396, 148, 302 read with Sections 149 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The fact that there was a dacoity at the house of the complainant in the night between September 13 and September 14, 1982 wherein Khamani Ram had been done to death and the articles belonging to the complainant had been looted had nut been assailed. The allegations or the complainant are that the respondents were the members of the gang which had come to murder him and to loot his articles but mistaking Khamani Ram for him, shot him dead and made good their escape with cash amounting to Rs. 650/-, silver ornaments, gold coins and certain other articles. The report of the incident which took place in the midnight had been lodged on the following day at 8.30 AM. 3. The prosecution had examined Chhotey Lal complainant P. W. 1, Yashpal P. W. 3 and Dhan Sahai a witness not named in the first information report as P.W. 2 to substantiate the prosecution story. The learned Special Judge found himself unable to place reliance upon the testimony of the above witnesses. He has observed in his judgment that Chhotey Lal P.W. 1 and Yashpal P. W. 3 were both on inimical terms with the accused persons as Chhotey Lal and his son had been convicted under Section 307 I. P. c. on a report by the accused of this case. He has also referred to this admitted fact that there was dispute between the complainant and the accused with regard to land. So far as the witness Yashpal Singh is concerned, he found him to be ill disposed toward the respondents in view of litigation between him and the accused relating to `personals' as borne out from copy of a document on record. He found it to be highly improbable that the respondents could mistake the complainant for the deceased and murder him when they had no grievance against him. He found it to be highly improbable that the respondents could mistake the complainant for the deceased and murder him when they had no grievance against him. Besides it appeared to him to be improbable that the respondents without concealing their identity would have gone to loot and murder the complainant on residing in the same village. He has also discussed as to how the complainant had improved upon the initial version during the course of the trial and explained the numerous infirmities by pointing out that officials of the police station had been colluding with the respondents. 4. The discussion of the Additional Sessions Judge leaves no room for doubt that there was very strong motive for the complainant to falsely implicate the respondents. If the latter were out to murder the complainant, he could not have escaped unscratched when they were about twelve in number and the complainant was inside the house which they had ransacked. The non-production of independent witnesses in these circumstances could not be overlooked. Effort on the part of the prosecution to improve and embellish upon the initial version is also very obvious. The complainant cannot get away by attributing the obvious weaknesses in the case to lack of honesty on the part of the officials of the police station concerned. The additional Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence on the record had rightly arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to substantiate the charge against the respondents beyond doubt. The acquittal of the respondents being justified, is not liable to be interfered with. 5. This appeal against acquittal of the respondents, Naresh, Suresh, Ramesh, Raj Bahadur, Jagdish and Bahori under Sections 396 and 302 read with Sections 149, 148 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code fails and is dismissed.