JUDGMENT 1. Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanuman Garh has found appellants Lal Khan, Munsaf Ali, Bhoop Ram, Mahadia Ram, Phajan Singh and Surjit Singh guilty of the offences under section s. 148 and 102 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code by his judgment dated 18-8-1990 and has sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs l00/- each for the offences under section 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code and he has sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence under Section 148 Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine. each one of them has been ordered to be sentenced for imprisonment for one month. Both the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved appellants have come to this Court. 3. According to the prosecution case on 12-10-1989 at 1 P.M. deceased Jalaldin was returning from his field on the outskrit of village Kheruwala to his home. Present at the home were his son PW 1 Mohd. lqbal his daughter-in-law PW 2 Shamshad Begum as also his other sons Tufail Mohd. and Sheikh Mohd. It is alleged that all the appellants variously armed with deadly weapons opened assault on the deceased when he reached near the house of one Jamaldin. Appellants Lal Khan and Bhoop Ram are said to have been armed with Selas; appellants Munsal Ali and Bhajan Singh are said to have been armed with Gandasies; appellants Mahadia is said to have carried a lathi and appellant Surjit Singh is said to have carried a Barchhi. The prosecution case is that all the appellants dealt various blows to deceased Jalaldin upon which he fell down to the ground. Thereafter, Bhoop Ram and Lal Khan dragged Jalaldin towards the house of Lal Khan and then all the appellants gave him beating. PW 1 Mohd. Iqbal, PW 2 Shamshad Begum, Tufail Mohd. and Sheikh Mohd. raised an alarm upon which many villagers assembled at the scene of the occurrence. After giving heating to the deceased, all the appellants went towards the house of Lal Khan. Thereafter, Mohd. lqbal, Shamshad Begum and Sheikh Mohd. lifted Jalaldin who had become unconscious. No sooner was Jalaldin taken to his house, he breathed his last. and Sheikh Mohd. raised an alarm upon which many villagers assembled at the scene of the occurrence. After giving heating to the deceased, all the appellants went towards the house of Lal Khan. Thereafter, Mohd. lqbal, Shamshad Begum and Sheikh Mohd. lifted Jalaldin who had become unconscious. No sooner was Jalaldin taken to his house, he breathed his last. PW I Mohd lqbal with one Najar Hussain in his house got a report Ex. P/1 scribed. He took this report to the Police Station, Sadulshahar and submitted Ex. P/1 at about 2.30 P.M. on the same day'. on the basis of which the SHO of Police Station Sadulshahar recorded a FIR Ex. P/2 for the offences under sections 302, 147. 148 and 149 Indian Penal Code. PW 6 Rameshwar hal, SHO., Police Station. Sadulshahar proceeded the same day to the scene of the occurrence He prepared a site plan Ex. P/3 and its legend Ex. P/3A. He also examined the dead body and got prepared Fard Surat Lash Ex P/6 and Panchayat Nama Ex. P 7. He got the dead body of Jalaldin photographed from the scene of the occurrence. He is said to have. recovered one shoe wide Ex. P/4 and two pieces of a chain of a wrist watch vide Ex. P 5. 4. Rameshwar Lal got post mortem examination of the deceased done the same day by Dr. Pratap Singh Bhatia PW 3. Dr. Bhatia found as many as 27 injuries on the person of the deceased described in greater detail in the post mortem report Ex. P/10. According to Dr. Bhatia. not a single injury had been caused on the vital part of the deceased. Most of the injuries were on legs and hands of the deceased. Out of the various injuries received by deceased, injuries No. 3, 5, 7, 17 & 22 were grievous in nature and all other injuries were simple. Injury No. 3 was on the right Land; injury No. 5 was on the left hand; injury No. 7 was on the left hand, injury No. 17 was on the right leg and injury No. 22 was on the left leg. According to Dr. Bhatia, the deceased had not died soon after the assault but had remained alive for fifty to fifty five minutes. He did not find any marks of dragging on the deceased. According to Dr. According to Dr. Bhatia, the deceased had not died soon after the assault but had remained alive for fifty to fifty five minutes. He did not find any marks of dragging on the deceased. According to Dr. Bhatia, injuries No. 1, 2, 4, 15, 16,17 and 18 to 22 had been caused by some sharp object; injuries No. 15 to 22 had been caused by some pointed sharp weapon and rest of the injuries had been caused by blunt object. According to Dr. Bhatia. the injuries received by the deceased were not imminently dangerous but were likely to cause death and the deceased had died due to hemorrhage shock because of the aforesaid injuries. 5. We find that at one point. Dr. Bhatia has committed a mistake when he says that there was not a single injury on the vital part of the deceased because injury No. 1 is an incised wound on the occipital parietal region of the head. The underlying bones were intact and this injury was superficial. It appears that during the course of investigation, the appellants were arrested and certain weapons were recovered at their instance. However, we need not dwell upon this aspect of the matter. The chemical examination report in respect of these weapons has not been produced, After completion of due investigation, the accused appellants were duly challaned before the Court of M.J.M., Sadulshahar who committed them to the Court of .learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh who after due trial, convicted and sentenced them as stated above. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that in the present case, the learned trill Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants on the basis of the alleged eye witness testimony of PW 1 Mohd. Iqbal and PW Shamshed Begum. It is submitted that the testimony of both these witnesses is unreliable and does not inspire any confidence. He contends that both these witnesses must not have seen the occurrence at all. It is urged that the incident mast not have taken place near the house of Jamaldin because no blood was found from that place. The prosecution has come out with an explanation that the accused appellants had scraped away the blood stained soil from the scene of the occurrence but no evidence has been led to substantiate this part of the prosecution case. The prosecution has come out with an explanation that the accused appellants had scraped away the blood stained soil from the scene of the occurrence but no evidence has been led to substantiate this part of the prosecution case. It is urged that the prosecution evidence is not in accord with the medical evidence and it appears that the deceased might have been assaulted at some other place and must have been brought to his house much after the incident inasmuch as no blood was found even in the house of the deceased. 7. It is urged that it is surprising that six appellants belonging to three different families and three different castes and communities would have united to join in an assault upon the deceased. It has been contended that admittedly. all the appellants were on inimical terms with prosecution witnesses Mohd. Ighal. Shamshad Begum and with his family and it appears that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Various discrepancies have also been pointed out. It has been urged that the independent witnesses, though available, have not been examined and the only inference is that had they been examined, they would not have supported the prosecution story. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have tried to support the judgment of the learned trial Judge. 9. We have given our earnest consideration to the arguments raised before us and have also gone through the record carefully. There is no doubt that the deceased Jalaldin died as homicidal death 2nd more than two or three persons must have assaulted him as is evident from the medical evidence appearing in the case. But on careful reading of the testimony of Mohd. Iqbal and Shamshad Begum, we are not satisfied that they are witnesses of truth and are giving a truthful version of the incident. Admittedly. the members of the family of Jalaldin, deceased, were on inimical terms with the present appellants who belong to three different communities and three different families. Enmity is a double edged weapon arcs in the fluent case, it appears that the appellants have been involved falsely due to this previous enmity. 10. If prosecution story as given by Mohd. Admittedly. the members of the family of Jalaldin, deceased, were on inimical terms with the present appellants who belong to three different communities and three different families. Enmity is a double edged weapon arcs in the fluent case, it appears that the appellants have been involved falsely due to this previous enmity. 10. If prosecution story as given by Mohd. Iqbal and Shamshad Begum is to be believed, the deceased immediately after the assault had been taken in his house and he remained lying there till the Investigating Officer reached the spot. The number of the injuries caused to the deceased go to show that be must have bled profusely from the injuries and this must have left tellturted marks of blood in the house. No blood stained soil appears to have been recovered from the house of the deceased which goes to suggest that the deceased must have died after he had stopped bleeding from his injuries. If Mohd. Iqbal and Shamshad Begum are to he believed then the deceased had been dragged for a sufficient distance but the Doctor did not find any marks of dragging on the person of the deceased. Nor were found such marks on the scene of the occurrence by the IO. 11. If Mohd. Iqbal and Shamshad Begum are to be believed then there must have been a lot of blood at the alleged scene of the occurrence; No blod was recovered from the scene of the occurrence which goes to show that the incident did not take place at the said place. The prosecution tried to give an explanation that the appellants had scraped the blood stained soil from the scene of the occurrence but there is no evidence available on record to substantiate this charge. 12. As far as the main story is concerned, Mohd. Iqbal and Shamshad Begum have given parrot like statements but on closer scrutiny, we find that their statements suffer from various discrepancies about which we need not dilate in details. 13. It is surprising to note that Mohd. Iqbal and Shamshad Begum stated before the Doctor. as admitted by Shamshad Begum, that they would give their statements as per the injuries found by the Doctor. She has further admitted that the Doctor conducting the post mortem had told these witnesses with what sort of weapons, the deceased had been assaulted. 13. It is surprising to note that Mohd. Iqbal and Shamshad Begum stated before the Doctor. as admitted by Shamshad Begum, that they would give their statements as per the injuries found by the Doctor. She has further admitted that the Doctor conducting the post mortem had told these witnesses with what sort of weapons, the deceased had been assaulted. Had these witnesses really seen the assault taking place. there would have been no occasion for them to enquire about the nature of the weapons with which injuries had been caused on the body of the deceased and this stand by itself is sufficient to discredit the testimony of both these witnesses. 14. Testimony of inimical witnesses stands on an infirm footing and must be corroborated by independent and cogent evidence. In the. present case, no such independent corroboration is forthcoming and testimony of one infirm witness cannot be corroborated by the testimony of another infirm witness. 15. According to the prosecution, a large number of persons had assembled at the scene of the occurrence. It is buffing that none of them was examined in support of the prosecution story and the only inference that may be drawn from these circumstances is that had these witnesses been examined, they would not have supported the prosecution case 16. Learned counsel for the complainant pointed out that from the scene of the occurrence, a shoe belonging to the deceased and two pieces of chain of a wrist watch also belonging to the deceased were recovered. It is surprising that Mohd. lqbal and Shamshad Begum were not asked to identify either the shoe or the pieces of the chain of the wrist watch said to have been recovered from the spot. Hence, this recovery also does not support the prosecution story in any measure. As already stated. certain weapons were said to have been recovered at the instance of the appellants but the non production of the Chemical Examiner's or FSL's report with regard to these weapons, renders these recoveries bereft of any value. 17. Hence, this recovery also does not support the prosecution story in any measure. As already stated. certain weapons were said to have been recovered at the instance of the appellants but the non production of the Chemical Examiner's or FSL's report with regard to these weapons, renders these recoveries bereft of any value. 17. In the present case, this possibility cannot be excluded that the deceased might base been assaulted at some other place and at some other time by certain unknown other persons and on information having been received: the dead body might have been brought to the house of the deceased and thereafter the various appellants who were admittedly on inimical terms with the members, of the family of the deceased were implicated and the false case was foisted upon them. 18. It is trite law that the prosecution must prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. In the present case, aforesaid possibility has not been excluded at all and has been rather rendered plausible by the medical evidence available on record. We, therefore, find that the judgment of the trial Judge deserves to be set aside and the appellants are entitled to be acquitted of all the charges of which the learned trial Judge found them guilty.. 19. We accordingly accept this appeal and set side the judgment, convictions and the sentences passed against the appellants and acquit them of the charges viz; under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. Appellants Lal Khan and Bhoop Ram are on bail and they need not surrender to their bail bonds. Rest of the appellants shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******