JUDGMENT 1. - The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are as follows. On 18-6-1978 at about 5 p.m. PW 1 Kumbha Ram by caste Meghwal resident of Bhatala lodged a written report Ex. P I to the effect that he had built a hut near the house of accused Rugsingh and accused Rugsingh and his family members were annoyed due to this reason. On 17-6-78 in the morning Kumbha Ram was bringing a pitcher of water from the 'beri' (small well) seeing this, Rugsingh, his son Gulab Singh, Bbom Singh, Jabar Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Balwant Singh and Amar Singh followed him to his house. At that time, Gulab Singh and Bbom Singh were armed with axes while others were armed with lathis. Rugsingh gave a lathi blow to the pitcher of water, with the result that pitcher was smashed. Gulab Singh took out a cot belonging to Kumbha Ram and smashed it. Thereafter, all the accused persons named above pushed him and gave beating to him. He raised an alarm, at which Duda Ram and Rana Ram rushed to the spot and rescued him. Upon this report, a case was registered under sections 147 and 451, IPC vide formal report Ex. P 4 and investigation was taken into hand. The police did not find any involvement of Bbom Singb, Amar Singh and Bhanwar Singh in this incident. It, however, found that Rug Singh, Gulab Singb, Jabar Singh and Balwant Singh were involved in commission of crime. Accordingly, all the four of them were put up for trial before the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Balotra. Learned Magistrate tried all the four accused, viz., Rug Singh. Gulab Singh, Jabar Singh and Balwant Singh of offences under sections 447, 426, 323 and 341, IPC along with for an offence under section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1976. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 2. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. The accused persons in their statements recorded under section 313, Cr. PC denied their complicity in the crime and examined one witness in defence, viz., DW 1 Bhura Ram. 3. The learned Magistrate was of the opinion that only Rug Singh and Gulab Singh had committed offences under sections 447, IPC and s. 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. PC denied their complicity in the crime and examined one witness in defence, viz., DW 1 Bhura Ram. 3. The learned Magistrate was of the opinion that only Rug Singh and Gulab Singh had committed offences under sections 447, IPC and s. 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. He found that participation of Balwant Singh, Jabar Singh was not proved. He, accordingly, acquitted Jabar Singh, Balwant Singh but convicted Rug Singh and Gulab Singh as stated above. Learned trial Magistrate (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banner camp, Balotra, to whom the case has been made over during the course of trial), sentenced both the accused persons to undergo R.I. for one month for offence under section 4/7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 400/- each and in default to undergo R.I. for one month. For offence under section 447, IPC both the accused persons were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one month. Aggrieved, Rug Singh and Gulab Singh went in appeal to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Balotra. The learned Sessions Judge maintained their convictions but directed release of Rug Singh on probation of good conduct. He however, reduced the sentence of Gulab Singh for offence under section 4/7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act and directed that he should undergo R.I. for one month and to pay afine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo further S.I. for seven days. For offence under section 447, IPC the sentence of fine was maintained but it was directed that in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for seven days. Aggrieved, Gulab Singh has come to this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the evidence against Gulab Singh, Jabar Singh and Balwant Singh was identical, yet the learned courts below have adopted two standards and have convicted Gulab Singh but have acquitted Jabar Singh and Balwant Singh. He submits that the petitioner deserves to be acquitted of both the charges on the grounds on which Jabarsingh and Balwant ssingh were acquitted. He submits that participation of Gulab singh in the occurrence is not at all proved. In this context he submits that Kumbha Ram is not a witness of sterling worth. He submits that the petitioner deserves to be acquitted of both the charges on the grounds on which Jabarsingh and Balwant ssingh were acquitted. He submits that participation of Gulab singh in the occurrence is not at all proved. In this context he submits that Kumbha Ram is not a witness of sterling worth. He has indulged in exaggerations. The story given by him that Rug Singh had smashed his pitcher was found to be unworthy of credence. Likewise, the prosecution case that Gulab Singh had smashed his cot was found to be unreliable. It is urged that the testimony of none of the witnesses inspires confidence and the petitioner ought to be acquitted. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor supports the judgments of the learned courts below and submits that the conviction of the petitioner is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and this Court should not interfere with such appreciation. 6. I have considered the rival contentions and have perused the record of the learned courts below. 7. The prosecution story merely rests upon the statement of PW 1 Kumbha Ram as corroborated by Duda Ram & Rana Ram. The story given by Kumbha Ram is that house of Rugsingh was behind his hut. Rugsingh was annoyed with him & used to tell him that he belonged to a lower caste and he will, therefore, not allow him to reside in the locality. The witness has further deposed that on 17-6-78 he was bringing a pitcher from the 'beri' to his house. Seeing this Rugsingh came to his house. He was followed by Gulabsingh, Bhomsingh, Jabarsingh, Amarsiagh, Bhanwar Singh and Balwant singh. All these entered his plot and said He has stated that at that time Gulab singh and Bhomsingh were armed with 'kulhari' and other accused-persons were armed with lathis. He has further deposed that Rug Singh gave lathi blow to his pitcher and all other accused persons pushed him and took him out side and at that time Duda and Rana came there. A bare reading of this evidence goes to show that the case against Gulabsingh stands on the same footing on which case of co-accused Balwantsingh and Jabarsingh stands. There is no allegation that the petitioner caused any injury by the axe. He has given an omnibus statement. No special act has been attributed to Gulabsingh. A bare reading of this evidence goes to show that the case against Gulabsingh stands on the same footing on which case of co-accused Balwantsingh and Jabarsingh stands. There is no allegation that the petitioner caused any injury by the axe. He has given an omnibus statement. No special act has been attributed to Gulabsingh. PW 2 Duda Ram has tried to corroborate the story given by this witness and has added that Gulabsingh smashed the cot of Khumbha Ram with an axe blow. This story is not given by Kumbha Ram himself. Rana Ram has also likewise tried to attribute the act of smashing of a cot by Gulab singh but statement of these witnesses have not been found to be reliable by the learned trial court. When it is so, the omnibus evidence against this petitioner is to the effect that along with other acquitted co-accused persons, he also pushed Kumbha Ram. To my mind, there is no reason to distinguish the case of this petitioner from that of the acquitted co-accused persons. I, therefore, find that this petitioner should have been acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 8. No other point was urged before me. 9. In view of what I have stated above, I accept this revision petition and set aside the judgments of the learned courts below and acquit petitioner Gulabsingh of offences under section 447, IPC and section 4/7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds. His bail bonds are cancelled.Revision allowed. *******