JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. One Malkiat Singh alias Mita is the appellant. He, along with 21 others was charge-sheeted for committing offence punishable under S. 148, 302/149, 307/ 149, Penal Code. 3. The case relates to an occurrence which took place at Jullundur outside the Court of the Executive Magistrate at 11.50 a.m. on 21-10-75. In that occurrence six persons lost their lives, in addition, six persons also received injuries. Out of the 22 persons charge-sheeted, only 16 were put up for trial. Two of them died and the rest were absconding. The trial Court acquitted four of them and convicted twelve and two of the accused - the appellant as well as one Surinder Singh were sentenced to death. The cases filed by the appellant as well as by the other accused were heard by the High Court. The High Court acquitted 10 out of 12 convicted persons and reduced the death sentence to one of life imprisonment. The two convicted accused, viz., the appellant before us and Surinder Singh fried separate appeals. Since Surinder Singh died during the pendency of the appeal, his appeal stands abated. Thus, we are left with the present appeal. 4. It is submitted that subsequently two of the absconding accused were put up for trial and they were also acquitted. It can, thus, be seen that out of 22 charge-sheeted, the only one that remains, is the convicted appellant before us. Admittedly, the case of the appellant rests on the evidence of PWs 2 and 3. It is also submitted that the evidence of PW-3 which has material value in the present case died subsequently and his deposition was marked and treated as evidence in the subsequent trial against the two absconding accused and that evidence also not relied upon. We are only mentioning this as a subsequent happening. The High Court while considering the case gave a finding in the first instance that the FIR in the case was a doubtful document and it loses much of corroboration. So far as the two appellants are concerned, the High Court held that the evidence of PW3 -an injured witness, can be relied upon as the same was corroborated by the evidence of Charan Singh (PW-8). It can thus be seen for the purpose of this appeal that we are concerned with the evedence of PWs 3 and 8? So far as the two appellants are concerned, the High Court held that the evidence of PW3 -an injured witness, can be relied upon as the same was corroborated by the evidence of Charan Singh (PW-8). It can thus be seen for the purpose of this appeal that we are concerned with the evedence of PWs 3 and 8? 5. PW-3 was the brother of one of the deceased Harbhajan Singh and brother-in-law of another deceased Roshan Sihgh. He deposed about the previous occurrence which took place between the two parties. This part of his evidence was that there was a bitter enmity between the two factions. Then, coming to the occurrence, the witness stated that the firing started at 10.45 a.m. Harbhajan Singh was at that time sitting on a bench and he (PW-3) and others were sitting on the ground nearby. The constable was also nearby holding Bhajan Singh in hand-cuffs. He further deposed that the accused came and raised a lulkara. Out of the five accused, he identified these five and among the five, he mentioned the names of the appellant and Surinder Singh, in particular, who subsequently died. In a general way, the witness stated that all the five started firing. He also added that all the five person went on the G.T. Road from the southern side of Amrit Dhaba and got into a green colour car, driven by a driver. PW-5 also deposed that as long as he remained on that spot, no officer or any police official came to the spot. In the cross-examination he has admitted that a number of incidents took place between the two factions. Thereafter, he was cross-examined with reference to his earlier statements and a number of contradictions have been marked. He did not state before the police that the appellant and the two others jumped over the dilapidated wall and came near the other accused. Likwise, he did not state in his earlier statement that he, along with PW-5 went to civil hospital. However, he was further cross-examined and several discrepancies were pointed out. We may mention at this stage that PW-8 ultimately remained as the sole witness on whose evidence we have to rely upon to confirm the conviction. It may also be mentioned that the other version given by the witness in the FIR has not been acted upon by the Courts below. We may mention at this stage that PW-8 ultimately remained as the sole witness on whose evidence we have to rely upon to confirm the conviction. It may also be mentioned that the other version given by the witness in the FIR has not been acted upon by the Courts below. That apart, there was a clear enormous delay in giving the FIR. Thus there are many infirmities and we are not satisfied with the evidence of PW-5 and the only evidence of PW-8 which is also not conclusive. In the circumstances, we are constrained to allow this appeal. Therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded against the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges. If the appellant is on bail, he need not surrender. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. Appeal allowed.