JUDGMENT D. K. Trivedi, J. 1. The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.5.1979 passed by the Sessions Judge, Barabanki, convicting the appellants under Sections 302/34, 325/34 and 323/34, I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to Imprisonment for Life, one year's rigorous imprisonment and four month's rigorous imprisonment respectively in connection with an incident which was alleged to have taken place on 23.10.1977 at about 7.00 a.m. in village Bhitauli Police Station Dewa District Barabanki. 2. The prosecution case is that the accused and the complainant are related to each other. It is alleged that Mewalal deceased, Ganesh, Bhagwandin, Bipat and Ram Lal were real brothers. Mewalal has been murdered in this incident. His son Chandra Ket is the complainant. Ganesh had three sons namely Barati, Nanhey and Gajodhar and all the three brothers are appellants in this case. Initially, Smt. Sarjudei wife of Barati was also an accused and was prosecuted in this case but the learned Sessions Judge by the same judgment and order acquitted her from the charges. Bipat's son Siya Ram and Ram Lal's son Shiv Baran are the prosecution witnesses. It is the case of the prosecution that all these brothers had common fields but due to partition they were in possession of their respective shares and were cultivating their fields. It is said that on 23.10.1977 at about 7.00 a.m. Mewa Lal deceased complainant Chandra Ket. Kunti and Maya had gone to cut their paddy crop and were bringing the harvested crop to the Khalihan. It is said that all the appellants armed with Lathis alongwith Sarjudei armed with Banka arrived in the Khalihan and on the exhortation of accused Barati they started assaulting Mewa Lal by their respective weapons. An alarm was raised by Mewa Lal and hearing the alarm several persons including the complainant reached there. It is further said that Siya Ram (P.W. 4) and Shiv Baran (P. W. 2) tried to intervene but they were also assaulted by the accused persons. After the incident P. W. 1 Chandra Ket took his father to the Police Station and lodged a report Ext. Ka-1 at Police Station Dewa District Barabanki. It is further said that Siya Ram (P.W. 4) and Shiv Baran (P. W. 2) tried to intervene but they were also assaulted by the accused persons. After the incident P. W. 1 Chandra Ket took his father to the Police Station and lodged a report Ext. Ka-1 at Police Station Dewa District Barabanki. A case under Sections 308, 324, 323, I.P.C. was registered against the accused persons but Mewa Lal died in the Hospital on the same day at about 4.00 p.m. therefore the case was converted under Section 304, I.P.C, P.W. 7, S. I., Sadanand Tewari was present at the time of lodging of the First Information Report, therefore, the investigation was entrusted to him. He recorded the statement of Chandra Ket and Shiv Baran at the Police Station and thereafter sent the injured for medical examination. He thereafter recorded the statements of the other witnesses and prepared a site-plan (Ext. Ka-8). He also recovered blood stained as well as plain earth from the place of the incident. It is further said that the Investigating Officer thereafter searched the houses of the accused persons and from there he recovered three blood stained Lathis. After completing the investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. P.W. 3 Dr. Y. K. Jalota examined the injuries of Mewa Lal, when he was alive, Shiv Baran as well as Siya Ram and prepared injury reports Ext. Ka-2 to Ka-4. He also proved X-ray report (Ext. Ka-5). He found fracture of Shaft of fourth metacorpal bone of the left hand of Shiv Baran. 3. Dr. Y. K. Jalota examined the injuries of Mewa Lal on 23.10.1977 at about 11.30 a.m. and found the following five injuries on his person : 1. Lacerated injury 2 cm. x .5 cm. x bone deep on left side of scalp, 4 cm. above the outer 1/2 of left eyebrow. There was contused swelling around this injury in an area of 4 cm. x 5 cm. 2. Penetrating wound on left side scalp just above the outer end of left eyebrow, size 1 cm. x .3 cm. x .2 cm. 3. Lacerated injury over vertex 8 cm. x. 5cm. x bone deep, 7 cm. above the external occipital protuberance. There was contused swelling in an area of 14 cm. x 12 cm. around this injury. 4 Black eye on left side with subconjunctival haemorr hage. 4. x .3 cm. x .2 cm. 3. Lacerated injury over vertex 8 cm. x. 5cm. x bone deep, 7 cm. above the external occipital protuberance. There was contused swelling in an area of 14 cm. x 12 cm. around this injury. 4 Black eye on left side with subconjunctival haemorr hage. 4. Contused swelling on left forehead on dorsal surface, size 6 cm. x 8 cm., 4 cm. above the left wrist joint 5. The injuries were fresh and according to him the injuries Nos.1, 3 and 5 were caused by blunt object like Lathi and injury No. 2 had been caused by penetrating weapon. Doctor Jalota further found three injuries on the body of Shiv Baran which are as under: 1. Incised wound 3 cm. x 5 cm x muscle deep Just above the lateral half of right eyebrow. 2. Incised wound over left ear pinna, 1 cm. below its upper end upto 1-1/2 cm. deep towards left ear base. 3. Contused swelling over dorsum of left hand, size 4 cm. x 5 cm. above the base of medial three fingers. According to the Doctor injuries Nos.1 and 2 were caused by sharp edged weapon and injury No. 3 by a blunt object. On X-ray examination, fracture of the shaft of fourth metacarpal bone of Shiv Baran was found. The injuries were also found to be fresh. 5. Dr. Y. K. Jalota also examined the injuries of Siya Ram and found the following injuries : 1. Contusion 3 cm. x 2 cm. over vertex, 17 cm. above the external occipital protuberance with abrasion 5 cm. x .5 cm. in middle. 2 Contusion 3 cm. x 2.5 cm. over frontal area on the Shark right eyebrow with abrasion .5 cm. x .5 cm. in middle. 3. Complaint of pain in right shoulder region. The injuries of Siya Ram were found to be half day old. 6. The autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by P.W. 8, Dr. I. F.Nath on 24.10.1977 at about 3.30 p.m. The post mortem report is Ext. Ka- 10. The Doctor found the following ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased Mewa Lal: 1. Stitched wound 2.5 cm. in length, on the left side of head 3.5 cm. above the eyebrow. On opening of stitches the wound was found to be bone deep. 2 Stitched wound 1 cm. Ka- 10. The Doctor found the following ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased Mewa Lal: 1. Stitched wound 2.5 cm. in length, on the left side of head 3.5 cm. above the eyebrow. On opening of stitches the wound was found to be bone deep. 2 Stitched wound 1 cm. long just above the outer angle of left eye (bone deep). 3. Stitched wound 8 cm. long on the posterior part of vertex with swelling all around. 4 Swelling 6.5 cm. x 8 cm. on the left forearm with fracture underneath. There was fracture of left ulna. On internal examination the Doctor found fracture of occipital bone and left parietal and temporal bones. According to him the death had occurred due to shock and haemorrage as a result of head injuries. 7. On the other hand, the accused denied the prosecution case and stated that the incident took place in another manner and, in fact, they plied their Lathis in self-defence. Accused Gajodhar also lodged a report at 10.10 a.m. on 23.10.1977 at Police Station Dewa against Siya Ram (P.W. 4) Chandra Ket (P.W. 1), Mewa Lal deceased, Shiv Baran (P.W. 2) and Gumani. The said report was registered under Sections 324, 323, 147, I.P.C. According to accused Barati chak No. 1 belongs to him and his brothers exclusively and Mewa Lal was never in possession of it. It is said that on the date of the incident Mewa Lal and others were harvesting his crop of chak No. 1 Gajodhar accused asked them not to cut the crop on which Mewa Lal, Gumani, Siya Ram and Chandra Ket assaulted him with Lathis and Shiv Baran with Kanta. It is also alleged by them that in order to save Gajodhar, Nanhey, Barati and Gajodhar also wielded Lathis causing injuries to Mewa Lal and others. After the incident Gajodhar lodged the report Ext. Kha-9 at the Police Station at 10.10. a.m. on 23.10.1977 Smt. Sarju Dei denied her presence at the time of the incident. The accused in support of their case examined one witness namely Ram Sagar (D.W. 1) who supported the defence version and stated that the incident took place in the field. Dr. Y. K. Jalota also examined the injuries of the appellants and proved the injuries reports Ext. Kha- 1 to Kha-3 Dr. The accused in support of their case examined one witness namely Ram Sagar (D.W. 1) who supported the defence version and stated that the incident took place in the field. Dr. Y. K. Jalota also examined the injuries of the appellants and proved the injuries reports Ext. Kha- 1 to Kha-3 Dr. Y. K. Jalota examined the injuries of the accused persons between 2.30 p.m. to 3.10 p.m. and he found the following injuries on the person of Gajodhar: 1. Lacerated injury 3 cm. x .5 cm. x bone deep over forehead 1 cm. above the lateral end of left eyebrow. 2. Contusion 16 cm. x 2 cm. on the head left side, in the middle, scapular region. 3. Contusion 8 cm. x 1 cm. over back of chest on the right side, 4 cm. below the interior angle of right scapula. 4. Contusion 5 cm. x 3 cm. on the dorsum of left hand above the medial two fingers. 5. Abrasion 1 cm. x .5 cm. on the dorsal surface of left thumb over the proximal phalanx. According to the Doctor the injuries were about 8 hours old and were caused by blunt object. 8. On the person of Nanhey the Doctor found the following injuries: 1. Lacerated injury 4 cm. x.5 cm. x bone deep on vertex. 12 cm. above the external occipital protuberance. There was contused veiling around this injury in an area of 11 cm. x 10cm. 2. Lacerated injury 1 cm. x .5 cm. x bone deep, 2 cm. above the lateral end of right eyebrow. There was contused swelling in an area of 7 cm. x 4 cm. around the injury. 3. Contusion 8 cm. x 9 cm. on the lateral outer surface of right forearm, 4 cm. below the right elbow joint. 4 Contused swelling 6 cm. x 4 cm. on the dorsal surface of left hand above the medial two fingers. 5. Contused swelling 8 cm. x 5 cm. on the dorsal surface of left foot just above the medial three toes. 6. Incised wound 3 cm. x .3 cm. x 1 cm. (underlying bone was visible) on the anterior surface of right left, 4 cm. below the right knee joint. According to the Doctor the injuries were 8 hours old. Injuries No. 1 to 5 were caused by blunt object while injury No. 5 was caused by sharp weapon. 6. Incised wound 3 cm. x .3 cm. x 1 cm. (underlying bone was visible) on the anterior surface of right left, 4 cm. below the right knee joint. According to the Doctor the injuries were 8 hours old. Injuries No. 1 to 5 were caused by blunt object while injury No. 5 was caused by sharp weapon. On the person of Barati the Doctor found the following 8 Injuries : 1. Lacerated injury over right side of forehead 12 cm. x 1.5 cm. x bone deep, 4 cm. above the right eyebrow. 2. Lacerated injury 4 cm. x .5 cm. x muscle deep over forehead 5 cm. above the root of nose. 3. Lacerated injury 5 cm. x .5 cm. x bone deep over left parietal region, 8 cm. above the left ear. 4. Lacerated injury 6 cm. x.5cm. x bone deep over the occipital region, 6 cm. above the external occipital protuberance. 5. Contused swelling over dorsum of left hand 6 cm. x 5 cm. above the medial two fingers. There was a lacerated injury 1 cm. x .3 cm. x muscle deep over the space between left little and ring fingers. 6. Contused swelling 7 cm. x 6 cm. on the lateral surface of left arm, just above the elbow joint. 7. Lacerated injury 1 cm. x .5 cm. x muscle deep on the dorsal surface of proximal intra phalangeal joint of right middle finger. 8. Contused swelling 10 cm. x 8 cm. over the dorsal surface of right foot on its lateral side just in front of lateral malleolus. According to the Doctor the injuries were about 8 hours old and had been caused by blunt object. 9. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 10 witnesses. Out of them P.W. 1 Chandra Ket, P.W. 2 Shiv Baran and P. W. 4 Siya Ram are the witnesses of fact. P.W. 3 Dr. Y. K. Jalota examined the injuries of the injured persons as well as the accused as mentioned above. P.W. 5 Chhanga did not see the incident but stated that Mewa Lal was assaulted in the Khalihan and further he was in possession of Chak No. 1, P.W. 6 Ram Pal is the witness of recovery of three Lathis from the house of the accused persons. He also proved the recovery of blood stained as well as plain earth from the place of incident. He also proved the recovery of blood stained as well as plain earth from the place of incident. P.W. 7 S. I. Sadanand Tewari conducted the investigation and submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. P.W. 8 Dr. K. P. Nath conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Mewa Lal and proved the postmortem report. P.W. 9 Kamla Prasad, Head Moharrir Police Station Dewa proved the First Information Report lodged by the complainant as well as the accused persons. P.W. 10 Constable Azadar Husain filed an affidavit stating that he brought the dead body of Mewa Lal to mortuary for post mortem examination. 10. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, he convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. However, he further came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of Sarju Dei beyond reasonable doubt, hence Sarju Dei is entitled to be acquitted. The appellants, aggrieved from the said judgment and order filed the present appeal in this Court. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant Shri Imtiaz Murtaza and the counsel for the State and the complainant and perused the record. 12. The main contention of the appellants' counsel is that the learned Court below committed an error in accepting the prosecution case and convicting the appellants overlooking the fact that the injuries of the accused persons have not been explained by the prosecution and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of the eye-witnesses. He further pointed out that the evidence of the eye-witnesses did not find support from the medical evidence, hence the prosecution case as alleged by the prosecution is no believable. According to him the defence has given a cross-version which is much more probable than the prosecution case and the same also finds support from the medical evidence, therefore, the same be accepted and the accused persons be acquitted. On the other hand the Government Advocate as well as Shri Nagendra Mohan counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge is a well reasoned order and, therefore, no interference is required in the said order. On the other hand the Government Advocate as well as Shri Nagendra Mohan counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge is a well reasoned order and, therefore, no interference is required in the said order. The learned counsel for the prosecution further pointed out that the presence of Chandra Ket (P. W. 1) or the spot is natural and, therefore, his testimony cannot be rejected on some flimsy grounds. According to him the accused themselves admitted that they assaulted the deceased and the incident took place at about 7.00 a.m. and therefore, non-explanation of the injuries of the accused persons will not make the testimony of the eye-witnesses doubtful. In the instant case, the incident as well as the time of the incident is not disputed. The only dispute is about the manner of marpit and place of the incident. According to the prosecution case, the incident took place in khalihan whereas according to the defence, the incident took place in the field itself. Both the parties namely ; the complainant as well as the accused claimed their ownership as well as the possession over the plot in dispute. It is also admitted fact that the complainant's party was harvesting the crop at chak No. 1. The defence no doubt admits that they assaulted the complainant's party including the deceased with lathi but they stated that the incident took place in the field when they asked the deceased not to cut the crop and further they plied their lathies only in their self-defence but even then the burden lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. According to the eye witnesses the appellants armed with lathis and Suraj Devi armed with Banka arrived at khalihan and started assaulting Mewa Lal with their respective weapons. It is further alleged that the witnesses including P. W. 2 Sheo Karan and P. W. 4 Siya Ram reached the spot but they were also assaulted by the accusec persons. The doctors who examined the injuries of Mewa Lal (when he was alive and who conducted the autopsy did not find any Banka injury on the body of deceased Mewa Ram. As pointed out above, the deceased has only two lacerated wound ; one penetrating wound, one contused swelling wound and one black eye on left side. The doctors who examined the injuries of Mewa Lal (when he was alive and who conducted the autopsy did not find any Banka injury on the body of deceased Mewa Ram. As pointed out above, the deceased has only two lacerated wound ; one penetrating wound, one contused swelling wound and one black eye on left side. The injuries clearly show that the deceased had no Banka injury and injury and on the other hand, he had a penetrating wound which could be caused by some pointed weapon. This is not the case of the prosecution that any of the accused had any spear or pointed weapon. 13. Apart from this, it is not disputed that the accused had also injuries and the same have been caused admittedly in this case. As pointed out above, appellants Barati had 8 injuries. Nanhey had 6 injuries and Gajodhar had five injuries. It is also not disputed that the prosecution has not given any explanation of these injuries. The F.I.R. lodged by Chandra Ket is silent on this point and further all the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution did not say anything that they plied lathis or anything in their self-defence. In these circumstances the learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and further has not palced the correct version of the incident, therefore, the appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt. The learned Sessions Judge in his order pointed out that P. W. 1 Chandra Ket admits that the injuries were caused to the appellants in exercise of right of private defence, but we find no such statement of P. W. 1 Chandra Ket on the record. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge while considering the case of the prosecution has mis led by the fact that the accused according to P. Ws. had bleeding injuries and therefore, non-explanation of the injuries does not make the prosecution case doubtful. The fact that the accused had injuries is not disputed, therefore, heavy burden lies on the prosecution to explain these injuries because in the absence of any such explanation, it would not be possible to hold that the prosecution has given true version of the incident and in these circumstances the court can draw an adverse inference also against the prosecution. The absence of explanation of the injuries of the accused specially when the accused admit that they assaulted the victims in self-defence, is very important circumstance and the court in these circumstances can draw an inference that the prosecution has suppressed the true version and had not come with clean hand and, therefore, the accused are entitled to get benefit of doubt. The learned Sessions Judge while convicting the appellants over-looked this very important circumstance that there was no explanation of the injuries of the accused-persons in the F.I.R. or in the trial. The eye witnesses examined by the prosecution have nowhere stated that any one of their side had plied or assaulted the accused during the course of the incident. The eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution admit that the accused have injuries but even then it is not said as to who caused these injuries and, therefore, in these circumstances, it is not possible for us to hold that these witnesses are reliable witnesses and are telling correct facts. HONOURABLE Supreme Court in a case of Ram Milan and others v. State of U. P. reported in 1993 SCC (Cr) 348, took a view that in case of non-explanation of the injuries of the accused, a grave doubt arose about the credibility and truthfulness of the version of the prosecution. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is as follows : "We find that the High Court has not given any reasons as to why the view taken by the trial court should be rejected. The appellate Court while reversing the order of acquittal has to consider the entire evidence in detail and give cogent and convincing reasons as to why an interference is warranted. On the other hand, we find that the High Court mainly seems to have proceeded on the footing that the presence of injuries on some of the accused by virtue of the fact that the injuries were found on them establishes the members of unlawful assembly. It may be treated that the presence can be accepted but the important question is as to how they are culpable particularly when they come forward with a plausible explanation by giving a report about the occurrence at the earliest moment. After a careful examination of the entire materials we are satisfied that the prosecution has not come forward with the whole truth. After a careful examination of the entire materials we are satisfied that the prosecution has not come forward with the whole truth. The prosecution at the most has established that an occurrence has taken place in which some persons on either sides received injuries. No explanation was given as to how four accused happened to receive injuries. In such a situation the version given by the defence cannot be rejected. Consequently a grave doubt arises about the credibility and truthfulness of the version put forward by the prosecution. Consequently we are constrained to allow this appeal." 14. In view of the facts stated above, it is not possible to say that the prosecution has come with a true story of the genesis of the occurrence. In fact to decide as to who are the aggressors, this is necessary specially when that the accused has come forward with a plea that the complainant's party was the aggressor. On the other hand the learned counsel for the State contended that it is not rule that whenever the accused sustained the injuries, the prosecution has to explain the same and failure of which will mean that the prosecution has suppressed the truth. In support of its contention, the Government Advocate relied upon a case of Harey Krishna Singh and others v. State of Bihar, 1988 SCC (Cr) 279, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court took a view that non-explanation of the injuries of the accused would not mean that the prosecution version is not correct. The principle enumerated in the case of Harey Krishna (supra) is quite different and not applicable in the present case. In the case of Harey Krishna (supra) the accused did not say that he acted in self-defence or caused injuries to the complainant's side in self-defence and, therefore, in these circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that non-explanation of injuries of the accused was not fatal to the prosecution if the testimony of the eye-witnesses was an otherwise believable. In the instant case the appellants from the very initial state stated that they caused injuries to the complainant's side in self-defence and placed a counter version of the incident. In these circumstances we have to see whether the prosecution has come out with a true story of the genesis of the incident. The Addl. In the instant case the appellants from the very initial state stated that they caused injuries to the complainant's side in self-defence and placed a counter version of the incident. In these circumstances we have to see whether the prosecution has come out with a true story of the genesis of the incident. The Addl. Government Advocate further placed before us a case of Thakore Dolji Vanvic Ji and others v. State of Gujarat, 1993 SCC (Crl) 704, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not accept the view that non-explanation of the injuries of the accused is fatal to the prosecution but again the facts of the case were quite different than the present case. In the case of Thakore Dolji (supra) the accused have denied for having received the injuries in the incident. They further stated that the version that they received injuries was not correct. In these circumstances, in our opinion the question of explanation of injuries of the accused did not arise but in the instant case the accused clearly stated that they were attacked first and received injuries in the incident. They further stated that they caused injuries to the complainant's party in exercise of right of private defence of persons and property. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Thakore Dolji (supra) is as follows : "When the accused themselves do not want to rely on the injuries found on them and do not in any manner connect the receipt of the injuries found on them to the occurrence, the question of explaining the same by the prosecution does not arise. The High Court has rightly held that the trial court has erred on doubting the prosecution case and the evidence of the eye-witnesses on the ground that the injuries on the accused were not explained." 15. In view of the facts stated above, in our opinion, the view enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Harey Krishna and Thakore Dolji (supra) is not applicable in the present case. 16. In view of the facts stated above, in our opinion, the view enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Harey Krishna and Thakore Dolji (supra) is not applicable in the present case. 16. Lastly the learned counsel for the State tried to say that as the accused has accepted that they caused these injuries and further the allegations of the accused that the incident took place in the field is not proved, the question of right of self-defence does not arise and the prosecution case in these circumstances must be accepted as proved. We are unable to accept this because it is settled principle of law that an admission made by the accused cannot be split up or used against him in part. An admission must be used either as a whole or not at all. In these circumstances, it would not be proper for us to split the admission of the accused and convict them relying on part of their admission. The accused admit that they caused the injuries in self-defence of property and person but they have given a counter version and, therefore, we cannot split up the said admission in part nor can rely on the part of admission that they caused injuries to the accused, therefore, they are guilty under Section 302, I.P.C. As pointed out above we either accept the whole statement made by the accused and, therefore, consider the effect of the same or reject it as a whole. As regards the ownership and possession of Chak No. 1 is concerned the evidence of P.W. 1 Chandra Ket is also very shaky. According to the prosecution case Chak No. 1 belongs to the complainant and he is in possession of the same. According to P.W. 1 Chandra Ket there was some private partition and on the basis of the said private partition, the complainant is in possession of Chak No. 1 and had sown the crop. However, Chandra Ket (P.W. 1) admits that Chak No. 1 is allotted to Rameshwar but Rameshwar transferred it to Ganesh father of the appellants. He further admits that he is not aware of this private partition nor knew as to who are the parties in the said partition. He has also failed to say as to when this private partition took place. He further admits that he is not aware of this private partition nor knew as to who are the parties in the said partition. He has also failed to say as to when this private partition took place. It is also not disputed that there is no written partition between the parties. It is also not disputed that rent receipts are also in the name of Barati. The land in dispute is admittedly recorded in the name of appellants but there is one entry of Ziman 9 in favour of Mewa Lal. It is said that the appellants filed a suit under Section 229B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and in the alternative, as a Ziman 9 entry is in favour of Mewa Lal, therefore, they also prayed for ejectment of Mewa Lal. In view of the admission made by Chandra Ket the story of prosecution about the ownership and possession of the plot in dispute is, in our opinion, appears to be shaky. 17. In this state of affairs the view taken by the trial Court that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the appellants is not correct and in, our opinion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 18. In the result the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Judge is hereby set aside. The accused-appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail-bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. Appeal allowed.