M. W. DEO, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANTS stand convicted for offences punishable under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC with a sentence of R. I. for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 500; Section 147 IPC with a sentence of R. I. for 6 months and under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC with a sentence of R. I. for 6 months. All jail sentences to run concurrently. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case was that admittedly the relations between the accused persons belonging to one party and the injured belonging to the rival party were strained over Panchayat elections. It was said that one Gopal Singh (PW -8) was assaulted by Bhura Khan who is one of the appellants. The rival faction, therefore, made an issue of it and went to Police Station Mandsaur to lodge report. While the party was returning to their village after lodging report on 22/9/1983 it was at about 8 0 Clock in the night near village Bugalia, that the appellants armed with deadly weapons like a gun, dhariya, sword and lathis assaulted the complainant party led by Ramlal (PW- I ). A report was lodged in Police Station Mandsaur Dehat at a distance of 8 Kms. at 9. 30 PM. During investigation Gautam, Balbahadur Singh, Ramlal and Lalu were found to have suffered injuries in the nature of contusions and lacerations caused by hard and blunt object. Some of them had resulted in fractures of arm and leg. After completing the investigation the accused were tried for charges under; Sections 148, 307 read with Section 149 and Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC. ( 3 ) AFTER the trial the learned Sessions Court found that no case under Section 307 IPC was made out and acquitted accused of that charge read with section 149 IPC; but instead found all of them guilty under Section 325 read with 149 IPC. They were also found guilty under Section 323 read with 149 IPC and one under Section 141 IPC and sentenced as stated at the out set. They were also found guilty under Section 323 read with 149 IPC and one under Section 141 IPC and sentenced as stated at the out set. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants challenges the veracity of the prosecution story as a whole on the contention that here are a set of people who were undisputedly on inimical terms with the accused persons wanted to the police that all the accused persons had formed a common object of attempt to commit murder of them. The contention was highlighted from this angle that though the accused persons were said to be armed with deadly weapons like a gun, dhariya and sword yet none of the injured persons had any injury resulting from such of weapons. The contention was carried forward to say that the medical evidence really did not support the initial stand of the complainant party making the repot that the accused persons had formed a common object of committing their murder. Thus the prosecution story itself suffers a dent right from its inception bringing in elements of unreliability. ( 5 ) IT was next argued that the entire episode appears to have occurred on account of an allegation that the accused Bhura Khan had assaulted Gopal singh and, therefore, the complainant party picked up the cause and had gone to the police station to lodge a report against Bhura Khan so that illegal activity of Bhura Khan should be curbed in the general interest of society and in the interest of maintaining peace. Thus evidence of Gopal Singh assumes central importance as nucleus of the case. It is, however, to find that Gopal Singh (PW- 8) did not support the prosecution and did not say that Bhura Khan had beaten him or assaulted him. He only said that he had only an altercation with Bhura Khan. The story of Gopal Singh is that though he narrated the incident to Ramlal (PW-1) the complainant, he did want to take the matter further but Ramlal (PW-1) and Balbahadur singh (PW -2) acted like busy body and took him to police station to make a report against Bhura Khan. This only showed how deeply the complainant party consisting of Ramlal and Balbahadur singh were interested in machanisation against Bhura Khan. This only showed how deeply the complainant party consisting of Ramlal and Balbahadur singh were interested in machanisation against Bhura Khan. Gopal Singh did not support Ramlal and Balbahadur Singh on the material facts of assault by the appellants on the injured. As Gopal Singh did not support the prosecution evidence, he was declared hostile and cross-examined. Gopal Singh thus may be demonstrated to be a unreliable witness. However, one cannot loose sight of the alleged fact of assault on Gopal Singh by Bhura Khan which had constituted the genesis- of the entire incident and this very genesis was knocked down when Gopal Singh did not support the prosecution. This may be second serious dent in the reliability and quality of the evidence from the side of prosecution witnesses. ( 6 ) IT was then argued for the appellants that F. I. R. Ex. P-1, categorically asserts that out of the appellants, Bhura Khan was armed with a gun, Babukhan and Bhanwarlal Jat and Ambalal were armed with Dhariya; and Bhanwarlal sb Nandram was armed with a sword while remaining four appellants Amritram, Nahar Khan, Kalu and Badrilal are omnibusly declared to be armed with lathis. The contention raised was that if the intention was to attempt murder of the complainant side and if the version in the F. I. R. of Ramlal (PW1) is that all these persons, armed with deadly weapons, assaulted the injured party with these weapon, the assertion of the F. I. R. is totally contradicted by the medical evidence which do not show any gun shot wound or even a single incised wound vis-a-vis weapons like dhariya and sword. The learned counsel, therefore, argued that it was a cook and bull story which was given in the F. I. R. and stood badly contradicted by medical evidence on a material particular of nature of injuries. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel, therefore, argued further that the attempt of Ramlal (PW- I) and Balbahardur singh (PW-2) who undoubtedly are the leaders of the other side and in their statement at the trial made a deliberately departure from the version in the F. I. R. to the effect that they were beaten only by la/his. The learned counsel argued that this was a well deliberated mechanation. The witnesses know that the injured had not suffered any incised wounds. The learned counsel argued that this was a well deliberated mechanation. The witnesses know that the injured had not suffered any incised wounds. The witnesses Ramlal and Balbahadur singh were confronted with the F. I. R. and case diary statement vis-a-vis the statement that the appellants had attacked with weapons like dhariya and sword and they had no explanation to explain the contradiction. Consequently the testimony of these prosecution witnesses certainly is not of such quality as would inspire credence to prove fact of assault by the appellants on the injured beyond reasonable doubt ( 8 ) LASTLY it is to be seen that the time of the incident was undisputedly 8. 00 PM and as such time of night. All witnesses agree that it was dark. I Almost all the witnesses agree that it was rainy I season (22/9/1983) and that it had rained just some time before. However, the witness embellished the statement by saying that at the time of incident clouds were passing by and, therefore, the assailants could be seen in the moon light which came at intervals. This embellishment apart, the fact that it was a rainy night with clouds in the sky, the identification of accused by the witnesses would certainly not be free from doubt The defence witnesses have described the place of the incident as a frequent scene of way-laying by the if and robbers in that area. It is in this light that the departure of statement of Ramlal and Balbahadur sing from the insertion in the F. I. R. regarding the weapons used becomes weighty and important. If the F. I. R. was correct, the expected injury would be incised would. Consequently the injuries caused by hard and blunt weapons only do not fit in with the F. I. R. and makes the prosecution case seriously doubtful in view of the defence evidence of possibility of way-laying by thieves. ( 9 ) LAST but not the least, the prosecution witnesses certainly show that before the F. I. R. was recorded, two persons from the party of the complainant had reached police station and one Surender singh had even arrived with a Jeep at the spot. ( 9 ) LAST but not the least, the prosecution witnesses certainly show that before the F. I. R. was recorded, two persons from the party of the complainant had reached police station and one Surender singh had even arrived with a Jeep at the spot. Consequently the F. I. R. recorded after the return of the party to the police station was not the first and unembelishment version of the incident and this is how the statement of the appellants that he prosecution story as given in the F. I. R. itself is not free from doubt, gathers persuation. ( 10 ) IN the light of the aforesaid discussion, the various factors emerging undisputedly out of the prosecution evidence, are such as render the prosecution evidence unworthy of credence. The learned Sessions Judge did not discuss this aspect properly in the ORDER but was swayed away by the fact that the persons has suffered contusions and lacerations with some fracture and thinking that there was enmity between the parties and erred in rushing to the conclusion of accepting the prosecution witnesses as reliable. ( 11 ) IN the result the appeal succeeds. It is held that the prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges beyond reasonable doubt against any of the appellants by cogent and reliable evidence. The conviction and sentences-under appeal are set-aside and the appellants are acquitted. Fine, if any, already paid, shall be refunded to the appellants. Appeal allowed. .