Honble ARORA, J. – These two appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30-1-82 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajsamand,by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted appellant Sawai Ram for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C.Accused-appellant Lahru was convicted for the offences under Section 302/34 and 323 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. Since both these appeals arise out of the same judgment and relate to the same incident,they are therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment. (2) Appellants Sawai Ram and Lahru, alongwith seven other accused, were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand for committing the murder of Jai Ram in the out -skirts of village Khatukda. The case of the prosecution was that in the morning of 25-12-78, deceased Jai Ram and PW1 Shambhu Lal left their village Khatukda and were going to police Station, Railmagra to lodge the report against the accused -party as they were not allowing them to irrigate their fietd through the well wherein they have sown the crop of Rizka.When they reached near Baldiya Nadi, Sawai Ram and Lahru met them and enquired from them where they were going : upon which Jai Ram replied that as you are not allowing them to irrigate their fietd from the well, they are, therefore, going to lodge the report again- st them at the Police Station. Meanwhile Ganesh, Mathura, Miya Chand, Gokul Gujar, Hari Ram Gujar, Madhu and Sri Ram, armed with Lathis, came there and exclaimed not to allow them to run and kill them. Meanwhile Ganesh, Mathura, Miya Chand, Gokul Gujar, Hari Ram Gujar, Madhu and Sri Ram, armed with Lathis, came there and exclaimed not to allow them to run and kill them. On this Lahru and Sawai Ram left their bicycles, untied the Kulhari from the bicycle and started beating him with Kulhari (Tabbal). Lehru grappled with Shambhu. Jai Ram, on receiving the injuries, fell down on the ground and when Shambhu tried to run away,Sawai Ram inflected injury to him by the Kulhari on the shoulder. Lahru,also, inflicted injury by the Lathi on the back of Shambhu. Shambhu Lal ran towards the village and informed the villagers about the incident. On hearing the cries, Nana Lal, Dali Chand and Lehru S/o Jiwana (PW19), also, came there. Appellant Sawai Ram was tried for the offen- ces under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C.; Lahru was tried for the offences under Sections 302/149 and 323 I.P.C. while the remaining seven accused were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offences under Section 302/149, 324/149 and 323/149 IPC. (3) The accused denied the prosecution case and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the crime. The case of accused Sawai Ram, in defence, as per his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., was that on 25-12-78, in the morning, he, alongwith Lahru, was going on bicycles from village Khatukda to village Sansara. When they were on their way leading to village Sansara and reached near Baldiya Nadi, deceased Jai Ram, Shambhu, Nana,Mangu,Dali chand and Lahru s/o Jiwana (PW 13), who were armed with Kulhari and Lathis and hidden themselves behind the Northern fancing of the field of Rama Bhura Regar, came from the hiding place, surrounded them and Jai Ram, who was armed with the Kulhari, inflicted injury to him by that Kulhari. The other accused, also, inflicted injuries to him. The other accused, also, inflicted injuries to him. He tried to save himself and snatched the Kulhari from Jai Ram and in the right of perivate defence of person,he inflicted one injury by that Kulhari to Jai Ram who after received the injury fell down and when the other persons were taking care of Jai Ram he took the liberty and fled away and thereafter he went to the police Station and lodged the report at 9.30 a.m. When he was giving beatings, accused Lahru requested the assailants not to assault Sawai Ram, whereupon Nanu, Shaubhu and PW 19 Lahru inflicted injuries with Lathis to accused Lahru and Lahru ran away towards village Khatukda to save himself from further beatings. (4) The case of accused Lahru, in defence, as per his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., is that on 25-12-79 at 7.00/7/30 a.m. he and Sawai Ram were going on bicycles from village Khatukda to Sansara. Near Baldiya Nadi, Jai Ram, Nana, Shambhu, Mangu, Dali Chand and PW 19 Lahru S/o Jiwana, armed with Lathis and Kulhari, were hiding themselves behind the fencing of the fields of the Rama Bhuru. They suddenly came out from the hiding place, encircled them and started beating Sawai Ram with Lathis and Kulhari. He tried to intervene and requested the assailants not to give beatings to Sawai Ram , whereupon Shambhu inflicted injury by the Lathi on his head, on account of which he fell down. Thereafter all the assailants started giving beatings to Sawai Ram. He got an opportunity and ran away towards the village, collected the villagers and returned to the place of the incident and found Jai Ram lying dead but Sawai Ram was not there. (5) The prosecution, in support of its case, examined twenty-one witnesses and the accused, in support of their defence, examined seven witnesses. The learned trial Court after trial, acquitted the seven accused, viz., Gokul, Mathura, Miya Chand, Ganesh, Sri Ram , Madhu and Hari Ram, but convicted and sentenced appellant Sawai Ramfor the offences under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. and appellant Lahru for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 323 I.P.C. It is against this judgment that the appellants have preferred these appeals. (6) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that (i) the pro- secution has suppressed the genesis of the incident and has failed to explain the injuries found on the person of accused -appellant Sawai Ram, which supports the defence version that appellant Sawai Ram inflicted the injury to the deceased in the right of private defence of person; (ii) the witnesses produced by the prosecution are related and interested witnesses and are not reliable one; the prosecution story has been disbelieved qua the remaining seven accused; (iii) the F.I.R. reached in the Court after nine days and this unexplained delay of nine days in reaching the F.I.R. in the Court clearly shows that the F.I.R. is the result of deliberation and consultation; and (iv) the statement of PW 5 Dali Chand and PW 19 Lahru were recorded on 28-12-78 and this delay in recording the statement of these witnesses makes their evidence unreliable. (7) The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused-appellants beyond reasonable manner of doubt and even if the prosecution case has not been believed with res- pect to the seven other accused persons still the remaining accused- appellants can be convicted on the basis of the same evidence if the evidence qua these appellants inspires confidence. (8) We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (9) Before dealing with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be better to first look into the nature of the evidence produced by the prosecution. The Prosecution has produced PW 3 Jai Chand, PW4 Nathu and PW6 Takhat Singh to prove the back -ground of the occurrence. According to these three witnesses, in village Khatukda, in their agricultural fields, they have a well known as `Chhapri well. In this well Rama had half share while Jai Chand, Nathu Goda Lahru had half share. Earlier there was no water in the well and they got it deepened. Rama did not share the expenses though it was demanded by them. Rama sold his share in the well to Mathura, Miya Chand and Ganesh. In this well Rama had half share while Jai Chand, Nathu Goda Lahru had half share. Earlier there was no water in the well and they got it deepened. Rama did not share the expenses though it was demanded by them. Rama sold his share in the well to Mathura, Miya Chand and Ganesh. Miya Chand, Ganesh and Mathura installed their electric motor on the well inspite of the fact that Rama had not paid the money of his share which was spent by them in deepening the well. After installing the motor, Miya Chand, Ganesh and Mathura did not allow them to irrigate their filed in which Jai Chand and Nathu had sown the crop of Rizka and, therefore, Jai Chand field a suit for pre-emption in the court of the Additional Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand. Alongwith the suit Jai Chand, also filed an application (Ex.P.8) for the grant to temporary injunction.When the accused did not permit them to irrigate their field, Jai Chand sent his two sons Shambhu and Jai Ram to lodge the F.I.R. at the Police Station.Sometime thereafter Lahru and Dali Chand came and he thereafter sent Dali Chand, Lahru and Nana to the Police Station. (10) PW1 Shambhu is an injured eye witness of the occurrence,who, alongwith deceased Jai Ram, had gone to Police Station, Railmagra to lodge a report and in the way the accused met them and inflicted injuries to him and Jai Ram. This evidence of PW1 Shambhu is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of PW2 Nana Lal, PW5 Dali Chand and Pw19 Lahru, who, after sometime, also left the village for going to Police Station, Railmagra and reached the place of the incident after the injuries had already been inflicted so far deceased Jai Ram is concerned but they witnessed the remaining incident. PW7 Kishan Singh,PW8 Dali Chand, PW 15 Bashir and Pw17 Shanker Lal are the Motbir witnesses to Ex.P.3 the site inspection note, Ex. P.4. the site plan, Ex. P.5 the seizure memo of the turban(Safa), dhoti, shirt and the pairs of shoes, Ex. P.6 the seizure memo of blood-stained earth, Ex P.18 seizure memo of the shirt and Dhoti of accused Sawai Ram, Ex. P.26 the sizure memo of sample earth and Ex. P. 2 the inquest memo of the deadbody. P.4. the site plan, Ex. P.5 the seizure memo of the turban(Safa), dhoti, shirt and the pairs of shoes, Ex. P.6 the seizure memo of blood-stained earth, Ex P.18 seizure memo of the shirt and Dhoti of accused Sawai Ram, Ex. P.26 the sizure memo of sample earth and Ex. P. 2 the inquest memo of the deadbody. PW11 Udai Lal and PW14 Hari Ram are the witnesses to the recovery of the earth but they have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. PW18 Khuman Singh is a witness to the recovery of the Kulhari from the open field on the information and at the instance of accused-appellant Sawai Ram while PW9 Ram Chandra and PW10 Chand Khan have been produced to connect the Kulhari (the weapon of offence ) with Sawai Ram. These two witnesses have,also, not supported the prosecution case. PW 16 Rameshwar Lal, the Patwari-has been produced to prove the Revenue Records. He has proved EX.P.21 -the copy of Jamabandi of Khasra No. 87, Ex.P.20 -the copy of Khata No. 53. According to him, these fields are owned by the complainant party. PW16 Rameshwar Lal has proved Ex. D.12- the entries of mutation of the well in dispute, Ex.D. 13 Khasra Girdawari of the field owned by accused Ganesh, Miya Chand and Mathura (son of Chaturbhuj),Survey No. 328, 368 and 376 owned by the accused persons as being irrigated from the disputed Chhapriwala well. PW12 Nahar Singh was the Police Constable posted at Police Station, Railmagra, who had taken the incriminating sealed articles from Police Station, Railmagra and handed them over in the Office of the Superintendent of Police. PW13 Radhey Shyam Constable, posted in the Office of the Superintendent of Police, has been produced to show that he had taken these articles from the Office of the Superintendent of Police to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur for F.S.L. examination. The person, in whose custody these articles remained from the date of their seizure till they were sent for F.S.L. examination, i.e. the Malkhana Incharge of Police Station, Railmagra, has not been produced. PW 20 Mr. K.C. Dixit was the Station House Officer, Police Station, Railmagra,who investigated the matter and presented the challan. PW21 is Dr. Moti Lal Suwalka, the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Railmagra, who medically examined PW1 Shambhu and found only two injuries on his person. PW 20 Mr. K.C. Dixit was the Station House Officer, Police Station, Railmagra,who investigated the matter and presented the challan. PW21 is Dr. Moti Lal Suwalka, the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Railmagra, who medically examined PW1 Shambhu and found only two injuries on his person. According to this witness, one injury can be caused due to fall and the other injury can be caused during the scuffle.He, also, performed the post-mortem on the corpse of deceased Jai Ram and found one injury on his shoulder. This witness,also medically examined accused Sawai Ram who was brought by the police and found ten injuries on his person and out of these injuries, two were by sharp-edged weapon and the remaining were grievous in nature. (11) The first question which requires consideration is: whether the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and failed to explain the injuries found on the person of the accused-appellants and appellant Sawai Ram was, therefore, justified, in the right of private defence of person, to inflict one injury by Kulhari to deceased Jai Ram, which proved fatal ? The prosecution case has been disbelieved by the learned trial Court qua the remaining seven accused. No appeal by the State has been filed against their acquittal, rather the learned Public Prosecutor appearing before the learned trial Court, admitted that as case has been made out against these seven accused. The prosecution came with the case that some days before the date of the occurrence, the accused party did not permit the members of the complainant party to irrigate their field where they had sown Rizka. On the fateful day deceased Jai Ram, alongwith PW1 Shambhu, was going to lodge the report against the appellants at Police Station,Railmagra. The case of the prosecution, further, is that 3-4 days prior to this incident, the accused party did not allow the complainant party to irrigate their fields. It has been admitted by PW1 Shambhu that at the time when the accused party did not permit them to irrigate their field, he and Jai Ram were there and the other witnesses Dali Chand, Lahru, Nana and his father Jai Chand were not present there. PW 5 Dali Chand and PW 19 Lahru have, also, admitted this fact. It has been admitted by PW1 Shambhu that at the time when the accused party did not permit them to irrigate their field, he and Jai Ram were there and the other witnesses Dali Chand, Lahru, Nana and his father Jai Chand were not present there. PW 5 Dali Chand and PW 19 Lahru have, also, admitted this fact. The evidence produced by the prosecution, therefore, clearly shows that PW2 Nana, PW 5 Dali Chand and PW19 Lahru were not the witnesses to the occurrence of prohibiting the members of the complainant party from irrigating their fields by the accused. There was, therefore, no question of sending these persons to Police Station, Railmagra when deceased Jai Ram and PW1 Shambhu had already left for the Police Station. The presence of these witnesses at the place of the incident, for the purpose shown by the prosecution, is therefore, highly improbable and they have been there with some other motive. PW1 Shambhu has, also, admitted that his father had already reported the matter at Police Station, Railmagra to this effect. The statement made by PW 1 Shambhu reads as under :– bl VaVs ds dkj.k esjs firkth us jsyexjk Fkkus essa fjiksVZ dhA If the report with respect to this prohibition had already been made at the Po- lice Station then there was no justification for making another report with respect to the same matter at the Police Station. The presence of the these members of the complainant Party at the place of the incident was, therefore, for some other reason. The complainant party had, therefore, suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and has come with a story which does not appear to be a probable one. The prosecution has, also, failed to explain the injuries found on the person of accused Sawai Ram as well as accused Lahru. Sawai Ram first lodged the report at 9.30 a.m. against the members of the complainant party at Police Station, Railmagra. This F.I.R. was registered at the Police Station prior to the lodging of the report by the complainant party. In pursuance to this report lodged by appellant Sawai Ram, he was medically examined by PW 21 Dr. Moti Lal Suwalka, who found ten injuries on the person of appellant Sawai Ram, out of which two were by sharp weapon and the remaining were of grievous nature. In pursuance to this report lodged by appellant Sawai Ram, he was medically examined by PW 21 Dr. Moti Lal Suwalka, who found ten injuries on the person of appellant Sawai Ram, out of which two were by sharp weapon and the remaining were of grievous nature. Ex.P.16 is the arrest memo of accused Lahru, which, also,discloses the presence of three injuries on his person at the time of his arrest. The injuries found on the person of accused-appellants have not been explained by the prosecution, rather all the prosecution witnesses have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the appellants. In the cross-examination when they were asked the question by the learned counsel for the accused regarding the injuries on the person of the accused -appellants, the witnesses deni- ed the fact of having any injury on the person of the accused-appellants.They even denied the presence of blood-stains on their clothes while PW21 Dr. Moti Lal has specifically stated that the injuries found on the person of appellant Sawai Ram were profusely bleeding. It is true that non-explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case if the injuries sustained by the accused are minor or superficial or where the evidence produced by the prosecution is clear and cogent and is of independent and dis-interested persons and is consistent with credit - worthiness. But where the witnesses are interested or inimical and the accused have sustained the injuries in the course of the same occurrence then non-explanation of such injuries is a defect in the prose- cution case which shows that the origin and genesis of the occurrence has been deliberately suppressed. (12) In the present case, non-explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused -appellants by the prosecution, assumes greater importance in the circumstances when the evidence produced by the prosecution is (i) of interested and related witnesses; (ii) the defence version is more probable; (iii) the prosecution case has been disbelieved qua the remaining seven accused; (iv) genesis of the incident has been suppressed; (v) the prosecution version is found mixed with falsehood; and (vi) the prosecution came with a concocted story and a coloured version. (13) Similar controversy regarding non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused, came-up for consideration before the Honble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh and others Versus State of Bihar (1) and the Supreme Court held :– ``In a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences:- (1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version ; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable ; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused, it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. Accused Sawai Ram had ten injuries on his person while accused Lahru had three injuries on his person. When the matter was reported by Sawai Ram at Police Station, Railmagra to Pw 16 Kailash Chand, the report was registered and the accused was sent to the hospital, where he was admitted;but still PW 6 Kailash Chand did not proceed with the investigation and set over the report lodged by appellant Sawai Ram and proceeded with the investigation on the basis of the F.I.R lodged by PW1 Shambhu and arrested the accused from the hospital without informing the concerned hospital authorities. It was only when PW16 Kailash Chand did not take action on the report that a complaint was filed and the action was taken and the complainant party was charge-sheeted and faced the trial for the offences under Section 307 I.P.C. etc. (14) In view of the evidence of the interested and inimical witnesses, the attending circumstances and the serious infirmities regarding the non-explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused, suppressing the genesis of the incident etc. make the prosecution case highly untrustworthy. (15) The next question which requires consideration is : whether the accused-appellants had a right of private defence of person and whether in exercise of that right the accused-appellant Sawai Ram was justified in inflicting one injury to the deceased which proved fatal ? make the prosecution case highly untrustworthy. (15) The next question which requires consideration is : whether the accused-appellants had a right of private defence of person and whether in exercise of that right the accused-appellant Sawai Ram was justified in inflicting one injury to the deceased which proved fatal ? The accused is not required to prove the plea of private defence of person beyond reasonable manner of doubt. The onus on the accused is only to show that the defence version is probable one which is reflected from the salient features and the circumstances appearing in the prosecution case itself. It is, also, true that the right of private defence of person cannot legitimately be utilized as a shield to justify the action. In the present case, accused-appellant Sawai Ram received ten injuries on his person and out of which two were by sharp weapon and grievous in nature; while appellant Lahru had three injuries on his person.Admittedly, these injuries were received by the accused-appellants before appellant Sawai Ram could inflict the injury to deceased Jai Ram, which is only one in number. The pro- secution has not come with the case that it is only after the injury was inflicted by accused-appellant Sawai Ram to Jai Ram that these injuries were inflicted to the accused by them. They have completely denied the injuries on the person of the appellants. When ten injuries had already been received by accused- appellant Sawai Ram then he had a right to protect himself and in exercise of that right he snatched the Kulhari from Jai Ram and inflicted only one injury to Jai Ram by it. Appellant Sawai Ram, in exercise of his right of private defence of person, had inflicted only one injury on the shoulder of Jai Ram which proved fatal. He never repeated the blow and there was, therefore, no question of exceeding the right of private defence by accused- appellant Sawai Ram. When appellant Sawai Ram has exercised his right of private defence of person and inflicted only one injury to the deceased, he has not committed any offence. He never repeated the blow and there was, therefore, no question of exceeding the right of private defence by accused- appellant Sawai Ram. When appellant Sawai Ram has exercised his right of private defence of person and inflicted only one injury to the deceased, he has not committed any offence. (16) The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the witnesses produced by the prosecution are related and inimical to the appellants and are not reliable.Relative or interested witnesses are not necessarily unreliable witnesses and it is no ground in itself to discard their evidence; rather related and interested witnesses can be said to be interested in telling the truth. If the presence of the interested and related witnesses is found probable and the ver- sion given by them is consistent and natural disclosing the natural cause of the human events then in these circumstances their evidence can be relied -upon. In the present case it is an admitted fact that PW1 Shambhu and PW2 Nana are the two brothers of the deceased while PW 5 Dali Chand and PW 19 Lahru are his brothers-in-law. PW 3 Jai Chand is the father and PW4 Nathu is the uncle of the deceased. The statement of PW 5 Dali Chand and PW 19 Lahru were recorded on 28.12.78 while the statement of PW 4 Nathu was recorded on 31-12-78. These witnesses have been disbelieved by the learned trial Court qua the remaining seven accused who have been acquitted by the learned trial Court. When they have gone to the extent of implicating seven innocent persons falsely and they have, also, su- ppressed the genesis of the occurrence and the incident has not taken place in the manner suggested by these prosecution witnesses then it becomes difficult for the Court to rely-upon the evidence of such witnesses. These glaring circumstances render the evidence of these artisan witnesses highly suspicious.After a careful and close scrutiny of the evidence of these witnesses, we are of the opinion that the evidence of these prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence. (17) The next question which requires consideration is; whether the F.I.R. is the result of deliberations and consultation and it reached the Court after ten days and, therefore, the prosecution case must be thrown-away on this ground alone ? (17) The next question which requires consideration is; whether the F.I.R. is the result of deliberations and consultation and it reached the Court after ten days and, therefore, the prosecution case must be thrown-away on this ground alone ? It is, no doubt, true that the incident took place on 25-12-78 at 7.30 a.m. and the F.I.R. was registered on the same day at 1.30 p.m. at Police Station, Railmagra. This F.I.R. reached in the Court of the Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand on 4-1-79, i. e. after about ten days. Section 157 Cr. P.C. casts a duty upon the investigating officer to forth with send the report of the cognizable offence to the concerned Magistrate. The purpose for forthwith sending the report to the concer- ned Magistrate is to keep the concerned Magistrate informed of the investigation of a cognizable offence so that he may be able to control the investigation and if required, to issue appropriate directions. Mere delay in the dispatch of the F.I.R. it self is no ground to throw away the prosecution case in its entirity. Sending the report to the concerned Magistrate is a circumstance which provides a basis to raise suspicion that the F.I.R. is the result of consultation and deliberations and it was recorded much later than the date and time mentioned in it,and discloses that the investigation is not fair and forth-right. (18). It has been held by the Honble Supreme Court in : Ishwar Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh (2) that :– ``The extraordinary delay in sending the F.I.R. is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting that the first information report was recorded much later than the stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence. In this case the suspicion hardens into a definite possibility when the case made in court differs at least in two very important particulars from that narrated in the F.I.R. In such a case, the evi- dence of the eye- witnesses `cannot be accepted at its face value. (19) In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that an extraordinary delay of nine days in sending the F.I.R. to the Court necessarily leads to the inference that the F.I.R. is ante-time and ante-dated and the investigation is not fair and forth -right. (19) In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that an extraordinary delay of nine days in sending the F.I.R. to the Court necessarily leads to the inference that the F.I.R. is ante-time and ante-dated and the investigation is not fair and forth -right. The F.I.R. lodged by accused -appellant Sawai Ram was not attended to by PW 16 Kailash Chandra Dixit and no investigation was taken -up him on it and the accused, left with no other alternative, filed the complaint in the Court and when the investigation on that report was given to other investigating officer then the charge-sheet was filed against the members of the complainant party. In view of such circumstances, the evidence of the eye witnesses cannot be accepted at the face value. (20) The result of all these discussions is that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused-appellants beyond a reasonable manner of doubt and the appellants, therefore, deserve to be acquitted. (21) In the result, the appeals filed by appellants Sawai Ram and Lahru are allowed. The Judgment dated 30-1-82 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, convicting and sentencing the appellants for the aforesaid offences, is quashed and set-aside and the appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. They are on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds are discharged.