Honble JAIN, J.–This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8.2.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has convicted the accused-appellants of the offence under Sec. 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment of fine to further under- go rigorous imprisonment for two months. However, co-accused Surjaram was acquitted of the above offence. (2) The prosecution story lies in a very narrow compass. On 8.3.1993, at about 10.45 a.m. P.W. 9 Mangtu Khan who was posted as A.S.I. Police Station Sadar Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar received a telephonic message from PW 1 Ashwani Kumar to the effect that Mahendra Kumar Jat resident of Village 8-A Chhoti was being beaten by Surjaram and others. On account of above beating, Mahendra Kumar had received multiple injuries and was lying in the lane. On receipt of this information, P.W. 9 Mangtu Khan recorded the above message in his Roznamcha and started for the place of the occurrence. On the way, he met Mst. Kalawati, the mother of Mahendra Kumar in her village and also took her with him and reached the place of the occurrence and found that Mahendra Kumar was lying in the lane with multiple injuries. Mangtu Khan recorded the statement of P.W. 2 Kalawati, which is Ex.P-5 and shifted Mahendra Kumar to the Government Hospital Sri Ganganagar. (3) The Medical Officer examined the injuries of Mahendra Kumar and decla- red Mahendra Kumar dead. In her statement Ex.P-5 which was recorded by the Police, P.W. 2 Mst. Kalawati has stated that on the above date and time, she was in her house. Her grand daughter viz., P.W. 3 Suman aged 6 years and Pappi aged 4 years were residing with her. P.W. 3 Suman was plying in the lane. All of a sudden, she came and informed her that Surjaram, Om Prakash and Dholiya were mercile- ssly beating Mahendra Kumar. Thereupon, she rushed to the place of the occurrence and tried to rescue her son Mahendra Kumar but the accused pushed her aside and continued in administering lathi blows to Mahendra Kumar. When the accused were convinced that Mahendra Kumar had died, they left him and went away from the place of the occurrence. Thereupon, she rushed to the place of the occurrence and tried to rescue her son Mahendra Kumar but the accused pushed her aside and continued in administering lathi blows to Mahendra Kumar. When the accused were convinced that Mahendra Kumar had died, they left him and went away from the place of the occurrence. She further stated that though she raised an alarm but none came to help her. She further stated that Mahendra Kumar had an old enmity with Om Prakash and he was murdered by the accused on account of this enmity. (4) The autopsy of the dead body was got conducted by P.W. 8 Dr. Om Prakash Sharma on 8.3.1993 and his Post Mortem Examination Report is Ex.P-29. The Doctor found 14 ante mortem injuries on the person of Mahendra Kumar. According to the Medical Officer, Mahendra Kumar died on account of strangulation. (5) The Investigating Officer arrested the accused-persons, and recovered lathies from their possession in pursuance of the informations furnished by them under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act. After examining the material witnesses, a charge- sheet was filed against the accused-persons in the court of the learned Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Sri Ganganagar on 9.4.1993. The learned Magistrate committed the accused-persons to the court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar for trial. (6) The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accu- sed-persons for the offence under Sec. 302/34 IPC but the accused persons did not plead guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. The statements of the accused-persons were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. The accused-persons denied the allegations and alleged that they have been falsely implicated in the case. They led no witnesses in their defence. (7) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution held that death of Mahendra Kumar was homicidal in nature. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relied on the statements of P.W. 2 Mst. Kalawati and P.W. 3 Suman and found a prima facie case against the accu- sed-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as aforesaid. (8) We have heard M/s. M.L. Garg and M.K. Garg, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants; Mr. Vishal Raj Mehta, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State; and Mr. Kalawati and P.W. 3 Suman and found a prima facie case against the accu- sed-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as aforesaid. (8) We have heard M/s. M.L. Garg and M.K. Garg, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants; Mr. Vishal Raj Mehta, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State; and Mr. M.L. Khatri, the learned counsel for the complainant. We have carefully gone through the record of the case. (9) Mr. M.L. Garg, the learned counsel appearing for the accused- appellant has referred to the statements of the prosecution witnesses and submitted that the statement of P.W. 2 Mst. Kalawati and P.W. 3 Suman who are the only alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence are not reliable. He submitted that the FIR in the instant case was lodged by P.W. 1 Ashwani Kumar and the said report is Ex.P-30. A perusal of the above report shows that Ashwani Kumar named Surjaram and others as assailants of Mahendra Kumar. According to telephonic message conveyed by Ashwani Kumar, it appears that Surjaram and Others after attacking Mahendra Kumar left the place of the occurrence and that Mahendra Kumar was lying in an injured condition in the lane. On the other hand, P.W. 2 Mst. Kalawati has stated that after beating, the accused left the place of the occurrence and none came forward to render any help to her though she raised an alarm. Thereafter, she hired a jeep and went to the police station but the Incharge, Police Station refused to register the case till he was satisfied about the correctness of the version given by her. It appears that P.W.9 Mangtu Ram then accompanied Mst. Kalawati and came to the place of the occurrence and then he recorded the statement of Mst. Kalawati. Thereafter, a case was registered and investigation started. A perusal of the statement of P.W. 2 Kalawati and P.W. 3 Suman shows that they are wholly unreliable inasmuch as in her statement Ex.P-5, which was recorded by the Police, P.W. 2 Kalawati has categorically named Surjaram as one of the assailants but in her statement before the Court, she denied that Surjaram was present there. Similar is the case of P.W. 3 Suman. (10) Mr. Similar is the case of P.W. 3 Suman. (10) Mr. Garg further submitted that there were number of persons present at the place of the occurrence but none has been produced by the prosecution to corroborate the statements of these two witnesses. According to Mr. Garg, it is a settled law that if the witnesses are not wholly reliable, the Court should not act upon their testimony till their statements are corroborated in material particulars other evidence direct or circumstantial. In the instant case, no such corroboration is forthcoming. He submitted that the prosecution evidence shows beyond doubt that deceased Mahendra Kumar was a bad character/person who indulged in all sort of criminal activities. The police filed a challan against him and a criminal case under Sec. 376 IPC was also lodged against him. (11) Mr. Garg also pointed out that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of these two witnesses and hence, on the basis of such unreliable and contridictory statements, conviction cannot be based. (12) On the other hand, Mr. Vishal Raj Mehta, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has fully supported the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge . (13) We have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and examined the prosecution evidence on record particularly the statements of P.W. 2 Mst. Kalawati and P.W. 3 Suman. (14) We may first refer to the statement of Mst. Kalawati Ex.P-5 which was recorded by the Police under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., which has been treated to be the First Information Report in this case. In the above statement, Mst. Kalawati has named three persons viz., Om Prakash, Dholaram and Surjaram but in her statement before the court, she has clearly excluded Surjaram and stated that Om Prakash and Dholaram and one more persons were beating Mahendra Kumar with lathies. She has categorically stated that Surjaram was not the assailant. When she was confronted with her police statement Ex.P-5, she came out with an explanation that she did not state the name of Surjaram. She has made improvement in her statement before the court. She has categorically stated that Surjaram was not the assailant. When she was confronted with her police statement Ex.P-5, she came out with an explanation that she did not state the name of Surjaram. She has made improvement in her statement before the court. In her police statement Ex.P- 5, she has not stated the manner in which the accused gave beating to Mahendra Kumar but in her court statement, she has stated that accused Dholaram and Om Prakash put a stick on the neck of Mahendra Kumar and holding the above stick, both the accused stood on the stick, as a result of which, Mahendra Kumar was strangulated and died. When she was confronted with her previous statement Ex.P-5 and 6 regarding this improved version, she stated that she also told to the police about the manner in which both the accused murdered Mahendra Kumar but it was not written. She further stated that the third person had covered his face with a cloth and hence, she could not identify the same. There is a contradiction regarding this fact in her police statement and the statement that was given by her in the Court. She admitted that her son Mahendra Kumar and Surjaram were prosecuted for committing rape on one lady Sulochana. She further admitted Krishna filed a criminal complaint under Sec. 406 and 490-A IPC against Mahendra Kumar. (15) During her statement before the Court, it was suggested to P.W. 2 Mst. Kalawati that she was not present at the place of the occurrence and she had gone to her daughter, who delivered a child. She denied the above suggestion. She stated that she was pushed aside but did not receive any injury. She admitted the presence of several persons at the place of the occurrence. (16) P.W. 3 Suman is a child witness aged about 6 or 7 years. The learned Additional Sessions Judge asked certain question to her in order to ascertain whe- ther she was a competent witness or not ? The learned Additional Sessions Judge held P.W. 3 Suman to be a competent witnesses and held that she did not understand what an oath is. She was, therefore, examined without oath. She has given a similar statement accusing the accused-appellants. She also categorically stated that there was no other person assaulting Mahendra Kumar. The other wit- nesses are of formal nature. She was, therefore, examined without oath. She has given a similar statement accusing the accused-appellants. She also categorically stated that there was no other person assaulting Mahendra Kumar. The other wit- nesses are of formal nature. (17) From the above, it is clear that the whole prosecution case hinges on the testimony of these two witnesses viz., P.W.2 Kalawati and P.W. 3 Suman. There may be three classes of witnesses viz., (a) wholly reliable; (b) wholly unreliable; and (c) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. It is also well settled that the court may act upon the testimony of a witness, who is wholly reliable and truthful, though it is uncorroborated. However, the question of corroboration arises in a case of the last category of witnesses in which the court is called upon to be circumspect. On a perusal of the statements of P.W. 2 Mst. Kalawati and P.W. 3 Suman, it is clear that the testimony of these two witnesses fall under category (c) i.e. neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. We have already referred to their statements. Both the witnesses in their police statements have categorically named Surjaram as one of the assailants of Mahendra Kumar but in their statements before the court, they not only excluded Surjaram but categorically stated that he was not present there. This is a very material contradiction in the sense that both these witnesses are telling lie about the identity of the assailants. If both the witnesses are telling lie about the participation of Surjaram, then how could they be relied upon unless their testimony is corroborated by some other witnesses direct or circumstantial. (18) In the instant case, there were several persons present at the place of the occurrence who have witnessed this incident. The names of some of the persons present have been given by P.W. 2 Mst. Kalawati. Even from the statement of P.W. 1 Ashwani Kumar, it appears that several persons participated in the beating. The first version of the incident was reported by P.W. 1 Ashwani Kumar. When P.W. 1 Ashwani Kumar was examined before the court, he categorically stated that he did not see either P.W. 2 Kalawati or P.W. 3 Suman at the time of beating. From this statement, it is clear that when he reported the matter, the beating was over and Mahendra Kumar was lying in an injured condition in the lane. When P.W. 1 Ashwani Kumar was examined before the court, he categorically stated that he did not see either P.W. 2 Kalawati or P.W. 3 Suman at the time of beating. From this statement, it is clear that when he reported the matter, the beating was over and Mahendra Kumar was lying in an injured condition in the lane. Thus, from his statement, it can be concluded that when he saw the incident and reported the sa- me to P.W. 9 Mangtu Khan, he did not see either P.W. 2 Kalawati or P.W. 3 Suman at the place of the occurrence. This renders their presence at the time of actual beating doubtful. The prosecution has not produced other witnesses who could corroborate the statements of these two witnesses which in the facts and circumstances of the case was absolutely necessary for according creditibility to the testi- mony of P.W. 2 Kalawati and P.W. 3 Suman. (19) It may be stated here that Mr. Garg has not disputed the fact that Mahendra Kumar met with an homicidal death. From the discussion of the prosecution evidence, it is clear that Mahendra Kumar was of a bad character. Even P.W. 2 Mst. Kalawati has admitted that he was involved in a rape case. The S.H.O. has further admitted that the deceased was involved in several criminal cases. A perusal of the injuries sustained by Mahendra Kumar shows that the injuries were caused on his private parts which is suggestive of some revenge relating to some sexual offence. (20) In view of what we have discussed hereinabove, we are firmly of the view that no case is made out against the accused- appellants. They deserve to be acqui- tted of the offence under Sec. 302/34 IPC. (21) In the result, we accept this appeal, set aside the judgment dated 8.2.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and acquit the accused-appellants of the offence under Sec. 302/34 IPC. The accused-appellants are in jail, they be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. (22) Let the record of this case be sent back to the learned lower court forthwith.