ORDER : K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. This is an appeal by the State against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad acquitting all the respondents. 2. Before the trial court as many as 30 accused were put up for trial for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 and 323 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. During the trial, one of them died. According to the prosecution, there was acute faction between the accused on one side and the party of the complainant on the other. There were several incidents which further embittered the feelings. While so, according to the prosecution, on 23-4-1975 at about 7.30 p.m., it is alleged that all the 30 accused were all interrelated formed into an unlawful assembly and armed with spears, lathis, etc. First they chased the persons belonging to the prosecution party but they escaped. Then it is alleged that they attacked and caused injuries to two of the deceased persons, Lalji and Soti. Then later, they also caused injuries to Rajwant and Dinesh during the same occurrence. According to the prosecution, some of the witnesses belonging to the prosecution party also received injuries and they are PWs 5 and 6. A report was given and the case was registered. The accused were arrested and charge-sheet was laid. The prosecution relied on the three eyewitnesses PWs 3, 5 and 7. The accused pleaded not guilty but on the other hand they set up a counter version, (sic) that Dinesh, deceased, was armed with a gun and he shot at Megha who belonged to the accused party and the prosecution party also inflicted injuries. The doctor who examined them has proved this aspect. It may be mentioned here that accused also gave a report and a case was registered and a separate trial was held in which some of the members of the prosecution party figured as accused and that case ended in acquittal. 3. In the instant case, however, the trial court relying on the evidence of three eyewitnesses held that the respondents-accused party were the aggressors and accordingly convicted them under Sections 302/149 Indian Penal Code and under certain sections and sentenced them accordingly. All the convicted accused preferred an appeal before the High Court. 3. In the instant case, however, the trial court relying on the evidence of three eyewitnesses held that the respondents-accused party were the aggressors and accordingly convicted them under Sections 302/149 Indian Penal Code and under certain sections and sentenced them accordingly. All the convicted accused preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court has pointed out that the prosecution has not come forward with any reasonable explanation as to how one person on the side of the accused died of gunshot injuries and other received injuries. The appellate court has also pointed out that the medical evidence established that the accused received injuries and one of them died during the same incident. The High Court having examined the belated explanation given by the eyewitnesses has rightly held that the same is not satisfactory. 4. To satisfy ourselves, however, we have gone through the evidence of eyewitnesses. The allegations are somewhat omnibus. They could not but admit that Dinesh, one of the deceased, used a firearm and killed Megha. Taking the overall picture of the case, this is a case where rioting of serious nature took place where both parties are involved. We, however, find that the witnesses have made large-scale implications of members of each family belonging to the accused. In such a situation it becomes further difficult to separate grain from chaff. That apart, we cannot say that the view taken by the High Court, namely, that the prosecution failed to give any satisfactory explanation regarding the death of Megha and other accused persons and, therefore, they have not come forward with true picture of the genesis of the occurrence. 5. The learned counsel for the State no doubt contended that the trial court has held that the accused party were the aggressors. We have seen the reasoning of the trial court and we do not think that the same is sound in arriving at a conclusion that the accused party alone was the aggressor. Even according to the prosecution it was Dinesh, one of the deceased who first used the firearm, though may be during the occurrence, it is only thereafter that the occurrence took a serious turn and there was a further clash. 6. Even according to the prosecution it was Dinesh, one of the deceased who first used the firearm, though may be during the occurrence, it is only thereafter that the occurrence took a serious turn and there was a further clash. 6. Under these circumstances, we are unable to apply Section 149 Indian Penal Code in such a manner so as to convict all the respondents-accused in the said offence, namely that all of them had the common object of committing murders. The wholesale implication in which it has been done renders the position very difficult to separate the case of any of the accused and fasten the guilt against them. 7. This is an appeal against acquittal and we are satisfied that there are no grounds to interfere. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.