JUDGMENT 1. This an appeal against appellant's conviction under Section 302, 330/249 of the IPC and the sentences imposed on him. Five accused persons including the appellant were prosecuted on charges under Sections 302, 302/149, 326, 326/149, 324, 324/149, 323, 323/149 and 147 of the IPC. Four of them have been acquitted and the appellant Ranjeet Singh alone has been convicted. 2. According to prosecution, on 18.6.90 at about 9.30 PM the five accused persons Ranjeet Singh, Vimal Kanwar, Smt. Baby, Smt. Pushpa Kanwar and Raghuveer Singh attacked the deceased Banne Kanwar, Munni Kanwar, Manju Kanwar, Bhanwar Kanwar etc. when they were at their own house. Ranjeet Singh was said to be armed with a sword and rest of them with lathies and stones. As a result of the injuries sustained in the incident Banne Kanwar died and the other two ladies received injuries by sharp-edged weapon. In the FIR Ranjeet Singh was said to be armed with a Sword, Raghuveer Singh with a Lathi and rest of them were either armed with lathis or stones. It was also stated in the FIR that the victims were attacked when they were sleeping. In the FIR the deceased was stated to be injured & not dead. The prosecution has produced PW-1 Munni Kanwar, PW-2 Manju Kanwar, PW-3 Bhanwar Kanwar, PW-4 Jagannath Singh, PW-12 Bhanwar Singh, PW-16 Jagmal Singh, PW-17 Santosh Kanwar, PW-18 Shyam Kanwar as eye witnesses. 3. PW-1 Munni Kanwar daughter of the deceased deposed that Ranjeet Singh gave a lathi blow and then changed her version and said Ranjeet Singh gave a sword blow to Banne Kanwar and Manju Kanwar as also gave a sword blow to her. She also stated that Ranjeet Singh also inflicted injury on Bhanwar Kanwar just above the eyes and on the back. She also stated that Pushpa Kanwar brought the sword and gave it to Ranjeet Singh. In her cross-examination she admitted that on the date of the incident the night was dark. FW-2 Manju Kanwar said to be injured eye-witness also stated that Ranjeet Singh was given the Sword by Pushpa Kanwar. In her cross-examination she stated that the entire assault had taken place before they went upstairs and when the deceased received injuries Ranjeet Singh was upstairs and had a Lathi (Dang) with him. Ranjeet Singh gave lathi blows to others except the deceased. In her cross-examination she stated that the entire assault had taken place before they went upstairs and when the deceased received injuries Ranjeet Singh was upstairs and had a Lathi (Dang) with him. Ranjeet Singh gave lathi blows to others except the deceased. She also deposed that the deceased succumbed to his injureis after half an hour of receiving them. She categorically denied the suggestion that when Jagmal Singh left the place for lodging a report the deceased was living. PW-3 Bhanwar Kanwar deposed that Ranjeet Singh was called at the behest of Raghuveer Singh. Vimal Kanwar shouted at Ranjeet Singh from upstairs to fetch the Sword. Ranjeet Singh called her sister Pushpa Kanwar and asked her to bring the Sword. On this Baby Kanwar and Pushpa Kanwar both came and Pushpa Kanwar brought the Sword and Ranjeet Singh then assaulted the deceased after taking Sword from Pushpa Kanwar. The witness admitted that bringing of the Sword by Pushpa Kanwar and handing it over to. Ranjeet Singh was not mentioned in her case diary statement. She was also not consisting as to the place where the quarrel had taken place. PW-4 Jagannath Singh a neighbour and relative deposed that Ranjeet Singh asked Pushpa Kanwar to fetch a Sword and on this Pushpa Kanwar brought the Sword and gave it to Ranjeet Singh. This witness in his cross-examination claimed to be the first outsider to reach the spot and when he reached the spot he saw that Ranjeet Singh, Raghuveer Singh, wife of Ranjeet Singh and wife of Raghuveer Singh were quarrelling with Jagmal Singh his wife, Nand Singh's wife and Banne Kanwar etc. When he was asked as to why in his case diary statements the fact of Ranjeet Singh asking Pushpa Kanwar to bring a Sword and her bringing it was not there, he stated that he had said so but could not say as to why the police had not recorded it. He also denied certain portion of his case diary statements. PW-12 Bhanwar Singh was declared hostile as he stated that Ranjeet Singh was empty handed first and then he was armed with a lathi. In his cross-examination he denied that Pushpa Kanwar gave the Sword to Ranjeet Singh and Ranjeet Singh gave a sword blow to the deceased. He also denied certain portion of his case diary statements. PW-12 Bhanwar Singh was declared hostile as he stated that Ranjeet Singh was empty handed first and then he was armed with a lathi. In his cross-examination he denied that Pushpa Kanwar gave the Sword to Ranjeet Singh and Ranjeet Singh gave a sword blow to the deceased. PW-16 Jagmal Singh who had lodged the FIR also stated that Vimal Kanwar called Ranjeet Singh to fetch a sword and Pushpa Kanwar brought the sword and gave it to Ranjeet Singh. He also deposed that when he came down the deceased also came down and nobody else came down. Ranjeet Singh inflicted three sword blows on the deceased Banne Kanwar when she was standing in the door. Then Manju Kanwar came down, she was also given a sword blow. He could not explain as to why these things were not there in the FIR or in his case diary statement. In his cross-examination he also stated that Ranjeet Singh had not himself come armed with a sword and the statement to that effect in his case diary statement was not made by him. He also denied that he had stated in the FIR that the incident was witnessed by Bhanwar Singh, Jagannath Singh and Moti Singh. According to him in the FIR and his case diary statement name of Moti Singh and Bhanwar Singh was wrongly shown to have been given as eye witnesses. He could hot explain as to why in FIR Ex-P-31 there was a reference to Ranjeet Singh having sword in his hand, but there was no reference of attacking with the sword the deceased and other injured persons. PW-17 Santosh Kanwar did not say anything about Vimal Kanwar or Ranjeet Singh asking for a sword and Pushpa Kanwar having brought it. On the contrary she stated in her cross-examination that when Ranjeet Singh came upstairs he had nothing in his hand. During the cross-examination she stated that the sword was brought by Baby Kanwar and Pushpa Kanwar from the house of Ranjeet Singh. PW-18 Shayar Kanwar was declared hostile and her evidence is not of any consequence. 4. From the aforesaid evidence it is clear that eye witnesses have improved upon the version given in the FIR. During the cross-examination she stated that the sword was brought by Baby Kanwar and Pushpa Kanwar from the house of Ranjeet Singh. PW-18 Shayar Kanwar was declared hostile and her evidence is not of any consequence. 4. From the aforesaid evidence it is clear that eye witnesses have improved upon the version given in the FIR. When in the FIR it was stated that the deceased and the victims were attacked while they were sleeping, the evidence laid before the Court clearly shows that, that was not correct. Moreover, when all these witnesses had deposed about the part taken in the assault by other accused persons also, they were not believed by the Trial Court as against the other accused persons who were acquitted. So far as the accused Ranjeet Singh is concerned, almost all witnesses have said that he was not having the sword earlier in his hand, but it was given to him by Pushpa Kanwar. Other accused persons including Pushpa Kanwar have been acquitted when same evidence was not believed so far as Pushpa Kanwar is concerned who was said to have been instrumental in putting the sword in the hands of Ranjeet Singh, it cannot be used against accused Ranjeet Singh also. If the prosecution has laid positive evidence about the role played by Vimal Kanwar and Pushpa Kanwar in having over the sword to Ranjeet Singh and that evidence has not been accepted against Vimal Kanwar and pushpa Kanwar, on the same evidence the appellant Ranjeet Singh also cannot be convicted. Reading the entire evidence as a whole it is clear that the prosecution has failed to place before the Court the correct and true picture of as to what happened at the time of the incident. In such a state of affairs especially when all other accused have been acquitted considering the same evidence to be unreliable in respect of them the appellant could not have been held guilty. 5. For the aforesaid reasons we allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if his detention is not required in connection with any other case.Appeal allowed. *******