SURYA PRASAD, J. This is a criminal appeal by the above named appel lants Basudeo alias Patwari, Ram Vir, Ram Chandra lias Chaila, Ratna, Beria Prem and against the judgment and order 29-11-1988 passed by the then VI Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Session Trial No. 145 of 1986 State v. Basudeo & Ors. under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302, I. P. C. , Cnandpa, District Aligarh thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant sudeo to Life Imprisonment under Section 302, I. P. C. to three months Imprisonment under Section 323 read with Section 149, I. P. C. and six months Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 148, I. P C and convicting and sentencing the appellants No. 2 to 7 to Life Imprisonment under Section 12 read with Section 149, I. P. C. to three months simple Imprisonment under Section 323 read with Section 149, I. P. C. and to three months simple Imprisonment under Section 147, I. P. C. All tne sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2 The prosecution case as set out in the First Information Report, briefly stated is that the informant Ram Khilari son of Panna Lal is a resident of village Kapura, P. S. Chandpa, District Aligarh. There had been a litigation between him on the one side and Basudeo alias Patwari and Ramvir on the other, sons of Jangali Ram resident of the said village in respect of the certain agriculture land, Accused Ram Chandra alias Chhaila, Ratna son of Chunni Prem, Beria sons of Channa and Balloo son of Chet Ram belong to one party. They all had been in the look out of taking possession forcibly over informant Ram Khilari. It is alleged that on 30-6-1985 at about 0 A. M all the accused came to the field of Ram Khilari, Basudeo was edwitna spear. He exhorted the other accused to the take forcible session over the land of Ram Khilari and to kill one who prevented them from doing so, seeing all this Ram Khilari started running away towards his. use with a view to save his life Basudeo chased him with the spear in his land In the meantime Smt. Kalawati, mother of Ram Khilari happened to there and Basudeo assaulted her with spear. use with a view to save his life Basudeo chased him with the spear in his land In the meantime Smt. Kalawati, mother of Ram Khilari happened to there and Basudeo assaulted her with spear. All other accused started assaulting Ran, Khilari, his brother Malkhan, Udal Singh, Mukhia and Mahendra son of Jaipal, consequently they all received injuries Bahadur, Chob Singh and Baboo saw the entire incident, Smt. Kalawati was seriously injured. She was being taken on a cot to the Bagla Hospital, Hathras for medical treatment. She however, succumbed to her injuries on way to the hospital. The informant Ram Khilari and others, who were injured in the course of the incident, got themselves medically examined in the aforesaid hospital. Thereafter Ram Khilari wrote a report about the incident. He took it to the police station and handed it over to the police official concerned there. On that basis a check report was prepared and a case was registered. After the registration of the case, the investigation ensured, consequently the then station Officer of the police station Sri Brij Mohan Udenia reached the place of occurrence. He prepared the inquest regarding the dead body of Smt. Kalawati One S. I. M. P. Tyagi prepared certain other memos at the instance of Sri Brij Mohan Udemina Thereafter the dead body was sent to the mortuary for post mortem examination. Dr. Jawahar Lal Agarwal P. W. 5 Conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Smt. Kalawati and found the following ante mortem injures thereof: 1. Incised wound 1 cm. X 1 cm X cavity deep on the part of abdomen 4 cm. above the outer to umbilicus at 10 clock position. 2. Contusion 3 cm. x 2 cm on the outer side of left thigh apper part. 3. Abrasion 4 cm, x 2 cm. of the outer side of left thigh lower part. 4. Contusion 2 cm X 2 cm. on the part of left thigh Middle, 3. Dr. Jawahar Lal Agarwal prepared the post-mortem report Ex. ka-2. According to him the death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries caused to the deceased. 4. Dr. K. M. Goyal P. W. 6 examined Malkhan Singh on 30-5-1085 at 6. 45 a. m. and found the following injuries on his person : 1. Lacerated wound on the scalp Lt, side 6 cm. ka-2. According to him the death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries caused to the deceased. 4. Dr. K. M. Goyal P. W. 6 examined Malkhan Singh on 30-5-1085 at 6. 45 a. m. and found the following injuries on his person : 1. Lacerated wound on the scalp Lt, side 6 cm. x O. 5 cm. x Scalp deep, 12 cm from Lt ear Bleeding & Ad. X-ray. 2. Abrated swelling on the scalp Lt. side cm. x 2 cm. 2 cm. Lt. to the injury No. 1 Ad-X-ray. 3. Abrated contusion on the post aspect of Rt. shoulder and scapular region 8 cm. x 1 cm. 4. Contusion on the Lt. thigh 9 cm. x 3 cm. front aspect lower 1/3. 7. All injuries were caused by hard blunt object they were fresh in duration and were simple in nature, He proved the injury report Ex. Ka-4, 8. Dr. K. M. Goyal P. W. 6 examined Udal Singh on 30-6-1985 at 7. 15 a. m. and found the following injuries on his person : 1. Lacerated (two) wounds on the middle of scalp 2 cm, apart from each other (:) 5 cm. x 0. 5. cm. X bone deep (ii) 4 cm. x 0. 5 cm. y bone deep bleeding present. Ad-X-ray. 1. Abrated contusion swelling on the posterior medical aspect of Lt fore arm 4 cm. X 3 cm. x 5 cm. above the wrist joint. Ad X-ray. 3. Abrated swelling on the post aspect of Lt. hand over wrst joint 3 cm. X 2 cm. 4. Contusion on the Lt. thigh outer lateral aspect 6 cm. x 2 cm. middle part. AH injuries were caused by hard blunt object and were simple in nature. He- proved the injury report Ex. Ka-5. Dr. K. M. Goyal P. W. 6 examined Mahendra on 30-6-1985 at 7. 30 a. m. and found the following injuries on his person : 1, Lacerated wound on the Lt. side fore head and scalp 4. 5cm. x 0. 5 cm. x scalp deep, 3 cm. above the eye brow. 2. Abrasion on the front elbow joint 0. 5 cm. x 0. 5 cm. R. Both the injuries were caused by hard blunt Object and were simple in nature. He proved the injury report Ex. ka-6. 9. Dr. K. M. Goyal examined Mukhia on 30-6-85 at 7. x 0. 5 cm. x scalp deep, 3 cm. above the eye brow. 2. Abrasion on the front elbow joint 0. 5 cm. x 0. 5 cm. R. Both the injuries were caused by hard blunt Object and were simple in nature. He proved the injury report Ex. ka-6. 9. Dr. K. M. Goyal examined Mukhia on 30-6-85 at 7. 40 a. m. and found the following injury on his person : 1. Lacerated wound on the Lt. side scalp 6. 5. cm. X 0. 5 cm. X scalp deep, 12 cm. from the Lt. ear bleeding Ad. X-ray. 10. The injury was caused by hard blunt object and was simple in nature. He proved the injury report Ex. Ka-7. 11. On the receipt of the post-mortem report and after completion of the investigation into the case, the chargesheet was submitted against the accused. 12. The prosecution examined Malkhan Singh P. W. 1, Bahadur P. W. 2, Ram Khilari P W. 3, Narendra Pal Singh P. W. 4, Dr. Jawahar Lal Agarwal P. W. 5, Dr. K. M. Goyal P. W. 6, Constable Balwant Singh P. W. 7 and the Medical Officer Brij Mohan Udalia, P. W. 8 and relied upon cenain documents in support of its case. 13. The accused pleaded not guilty. They have stated that all the allegations levelled against them are wholly wrong and incorrect. They have also stated that they have been falsely implicated on account of enmity. They have, however, pleaded ignorance about many of the facts relating to the case. They have examined Dr. R, P. Gupta D, W. 1 Chandra Bhan Agarwal D. W. it Dr. M. S. Garg D. W. 3, Dr. Auurag D. W. 4, Constable Bijendra Singh D, W. 5. Smt. Somwati D. W, j and Kaluwa D. W. 7 and relied upon certain documents including the injury reports regarding accused Basudeo alias Patwari, Ratan Lal, Smt. Har Piyari and Smt. Somwati m support of their contentions. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having coasidered the evidence on record, the then learned VI Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants vide his impugned judgment and order. Aggrieved, they preferred this appeal against the same. 15. We have hear J the learned counsel for the parties and have care fully gone through the record. 16. Aggrieved, they preferred this appeal against the same. 15. We have hear J the learned counsel for the parties and have care fully gone through the record. 16. There is no case or evidence on the point of origin of the incident. The prosecution has not established the mode and manner in which the incident had taken place. No specific place of the incident has been mention ed in the first Information Report. Not only this, but the same does not also appear to have been specified even then the charges were framed. This is probably the reason why the place of occurrence has not been specified in the charges framed. The charges framed are vague and ambiguous. The prosecu tion has given inconsistent and conflicting evidence on the point of the place of occurrence and therefore the same cannot be implicity reried upon. This being so, it can be unhesitatingly expressed that the prosecution has utterly tailed to prove the place of occurrence. 17. The informant Ram Khilari P. W. 3 has categorically stated that he and others of his side were all unarmed. He has however, admitted that the accused Beria had received some injuries in the course of the incident. Malkhan Singh P. W. 1 has also admitted that the accused Ratna and Smt. Har Piyari, wife of the accused Beria, had received injuries in the course of the incident. Bahadur P. W. 2 has also stated that Smt. Har Piyari and Smt. Somwati, wife of the accused Ratna had received injuries. The accused Basudeo had also received injuries as is clear from his injury report Ex. Kha-3 proved by Dr. M. M. Garg D. W. It may be mentioned that if the informant Ram Khilari P. W. 3 and others of his side had actually been unarmed, the above named accused persons alongwith Smt Har Piyari and Smt, Somwati would not have certainly received any injury in the course of the incident. However, the prosecution has not given any explanation what soever for the injuries caused to the above named persons. 18. In view of what has been discussed and observed above, the only inference which can be drawn is that the prosecution has not come with clean hands. 19. In that result the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order are set aside. 18. In view of what has been discussed and observed above, the only inference which can be drawn is that the prosecution has not come with clean hands. 19. In that result the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order are set aside. The accused- appellants are acquitted of the offences with which they have been charged. They are in bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. They need not surrender. Appeal allowed. .