JUDGMENT 1. - 7 persons were prosecuted on charges Under Sections 302, 323, 379, 447, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Raj Kumar was convicted Under section 447 Indian Penal Code for which rigorous imprisonment for one month with fine of Rs. 100/- was imposed. He was also convicted Under Section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-. Prithvi Raj was convicted Under section 447 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month with fine of Rs. 200/-. He was also convicted Under section 302 Indian Penal for which he was awarded life sentence with Rs. 2000/- as fine. Raj Kumar and Prithvi Raj have filed this appeal against their conviction and sentence. 2. On 6.12.1992 at 9.15 p.m. an FIR was lodged by the deceased himself complaining that when between 7.30 and 7.35 p.m. on that day he had gone to his Dhani, he saw a camel cart in his father's field near the stacks of Gwar crop. When he went nearer, he saw Raju Sewak and Prithvi Bishnoi and two other persons not known to him taking away Gwar crop from the field of his father with the help of the camel cart. When he accosted them and asked as to why they were taking away crop from his field, Raju Sewak fired a gun shot at him which went above his head, Prithvi gave a lathi blow on the left of eye and when he raised an alarm, his parents and his brother Madan Giri came on the spot and the accused persons ran away. Later on, Indrajit who had lodged the FIR, succumbed to injuries. 3. PW 2 Shanker Giri, father of the deceased stated that at the time of the incident he himself, his son deceased Indrajit, the other son Madan Giri and females of the family were there in the field and were busy in harvesting Gwar crop. At that time the accused persons, in all 7 in number having taken away one cart load of Gwar from their field had come with two carts, armed with lathies etc. Raju had a gun in his hand and Prithvi had a lathi. At that time the accused persons, in all 7 in number having taken away one cart load of Gwar from their field had come with two carts, armed with lathies etc. Raju had a gun in his hand and Prithvi had a lathi. When second cart was loaded by the accused persons, Indrajit went near the stakes of the crop and Raju fired on him hitting him in the head. Prithvi gave a lathi blow near the eye. On raising alarm, Liladhar and many other persons came on the spot. In his cross-examination also he was emphatic that Raju fired at Indrajit and hit him in the head and Prithvi gave the lathi blow. He repeated several times in the cross-examination that Indrajit was hit in the head by the gun-shot. PW 6 Madan Giri, the brother of the deceased corroborated his father's testimony. He also was emphatic that Indrajit stated in the cross-examination that the bullet which was fired at Indrajit did not remain in his head meaning thereby that it went through and through. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the theory of Indrajit having been hit by the gun shot does not match with the FIR version given by the deceased which was his dying declaration. In the FIR the deceased only said that the bullet had wizzed past his head. Learned counsel also pointed out that according to the FIR, these two persons had not seen the incident as they had arrived after the deceased raised an alarm. The learned counsel also pointed out that the testimony of these witnesses also does not get corroboration from the medical evidence. As many as 4 doctors have been examined in the case, three who had conducted the post-mortem examination and one who had treated the deceased before he succumbed to injuries. It was not put to anyone of them that the injuries suffered by the deceased could have been caused by gun shot. It was further submitted that the medical evidence in the case suggests that only one blow was inflicted and the other injury was hamatoma caused because of Injury No. 1. There were two injuries noted in the post-mortem report of the body of the deceased and both were said to have been caused by hard and blunt weapon. 5. It was further submitted that the medical evidence in the case suggests that only one blow was inflicted and the other injury was hamatoma caused because of Injury No. 1. There were two injuries noted in the post-mortem report of the body of the deceased and both were said to have been caused by hard and blunt weapon. 5. The learned Sessions Judge has also not believed that the deceased was hit by the gun shot but he found that Prithvi Raj caused the fatal injury on the head which resulted in the death. He, therefore, convicted Prithvi Raj Under section 302 Indian Penal Code and Section 447 Indian Penal Code. Raju who is said to have fired the gun shot was convicted Under section 302 Read With Section 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 447 Indian Penal Code. 6. Having heard the learned counsel and examined the record in detail, we find that the conviction cannot be sustained because truth has not come out clearly from the evidence on record. The two eye-witnesses become utterly unreliable because of their insistence that gun shot injury was received by the deceased. They are close relatives of the deceased and admittedly there is enmity between the accused persons and these witnesses because of their efforts to snatch from each other the Govt. land in illegal possession of both the sides. We are only left with the FIR which is the dying declaration. It is true that it is not absolutely necessary that such a dying declaration be corroborated by any other evidence but in the present case when corroboration was possible by the near relatives they have chosen to exaggerate the case to the extent of taking a false plea that the deceased having been hit by a gun shot to implicate one of the accused persons. The entire genesis of the quarrel having not come before the Court, it would be hazardous to rely on such evidence to hold the accused persons guilty. 7. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentences. The appellants are acquitted. They be set at liberty if their detention is not required in any other caseAppeal Allowed and Conviction Set Aside. *******