JUDGMENT Chitre, J. -- 1. These two appeals were filed by the accused who were tried by 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No. 95/91. The appeals arise out-out of same decision and same trial and. therefore, they are decided by this common judgment. 2. The appellants have been convicted for offence punishable u/S. 302 r/w 149 IPC, 307r/w 49 IPC. All the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence punishable under provisions of S. 302 r/w 149 IPC as well as they have been sentenced with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo S.I. for three months. For committing the offence punishable u/S. 307 r/w 149, they have been sentenced to undergo R.I for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to S.I. for three months. These orders of conviction and sentences arc for committing the murder of Ramsingh and for attempting to murder of prosecution witnesses Hakamsingh, Panesingh and Ratansingh. 3. Prosecution case in brief can be stated as mentioned hereunder -- On 1.11.90 at about 12.00 noon, when the deceased Ramsingh and P.Ws. Bane singh, Hakamsingh and Ratansingh were proceeding towards tube well in the field along-with their associates, the appellants, who were armed with axes, dharis and sticks, assaulted them and in the said assault Ramsingh, Hakarn Singh, Bane Singh and Ratansingh sustained injuries. Out of them Ramsingh died on the spot. P.Ws. Hakamsingh, Ratansingh and Banesingh were medically treated. In respect of the said incident, appellant Amar Singh had filed a complaint against those prosecution witnesses and deceased Ramsingh. They were also prosecuted in that context. 4. Prosecution examined P.Ws. Hakamsingh, Ratansingh and Banesingh and also Chanderbai, some panch witnesses, medical officer and investigation officer. Prosecution alleged that some of the appellants produced weapons from the place where they were concealed in presence of witnesses in pursuance of the information given by them. 5. Learned trial Judge after appreciating the evidence on record, held that prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, he passed the order of conviction and sentence as mentioned above. 6. Shri Jaisingh, counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned trial Judge committed the error in not noticing that the evidence of prosecution witnesses Hakamsingh, Banesingh, Ratansingh and Chanderbai was totally different from their statements in earlier documents. 6. Shri Jaisingh, counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned trial Judge committed the error in not noticing that the evidence of prosecution witnesses Hakamsingh, Banesingh, Ratansingh and Chanderbai was totally different from their statements in earlier documents. He submitted that in the FIR, PW Hakimsingh had mentioned that they were armed with weapons when they were going with Ramsingh towards the said to-be well. He further pointed out that these prosecution witnesses have changed their story which was stated by them when they were interrogated by the police in the investigation. He submitted that the production of the weapons or seizure cannot be connected with the appellants on account of insufficient and different evidence. 7. Shri Desai, Govt. Advocate, appearing for the prosecution submitted that there is no reason as to why the evidence of victims, Hakamsingh Banesingh and Ratansingh should be disbelieved- when their evidence has been corroborated by medical evidence and the evidence of Chanderbai. He submitted that the weapons produced by the appellants were blood-stained and they were kept in a concealed manner. He submitted that learned trial Judge has passed the order of conviction and sentence correctly, properly and it be maintained as it is legal. 8. We set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Judge against the appellants for the reasons stated hereunder: 9. It is pertinent to note that in the FIR it has been mentioned by Hakamsingh that Ramsingh, Hakamsingh Ratansingh and Banesingh were armed with weapons when they were going towards tube well with their associates, however, while giving evidence in the Court he has denied that fact. Not only that but prosecution witnesses Hakamsingh, Ratansingh and Banesingh as well as Chanderbai have changed their story when they were giving evidence in the Court. And when they were confronted with their earlier statements, they gave an evasive answer. The evidence of investigation officer, Dadusingh - P.W.14, shows that they had made said statements from which they deviated while giving evidence in the Court. It is pertinent to note that the above mentioned witnesses examined by the prosecution have thrown blame on the police for the omissions in their statements which were pointed out by confronting with their earlier statements. It is pertinent to note that the above mentioned witnesses examined by the prosecution have thrown blame on the police for the omissions in their statements which were pointed out by confronting with their earlier statements. Shri Desai, submitted that no importance should be given to such omissions but we reject this submission because these omissions are impliedly amounting to material contradictions. The evidence of these witnesses when they were confronted shows that on material and important part of the incident, they were telling the falsehood. Not only that but they had the boldness of giving evasive answers and to throw blame on the police for such statements. 10. It is further pertinent to note that FIR which was given by PW Hakamsingh shows that deceased Ramsingh as well as PW Hakamsingh Ratansingh, Banesingh. were armed when they were proceeding towards the tube well. They had concealed this information when they were giving evidence in the Court. It has been brought on record by the appellants through prosecution evidence itself that in the said incident appellant Amarsingh, Dulesingh, Jadusingh, Gajrajsingh had sustained injuries at the hands of deceased Ramsingh, PW Hakamsingh, Ratansingh, Banesingh. Very conveniently these prosecution witnesses have shown ignorance about that. It means that those prosecution witnesses were not only interested in deviating from their earlier statements convenient to their purpose but were interested in suppressing the fact that in the said incident, appellant Dulesingh, Amarsingh Jhadusingh and Gajrajsingh had sustained injuries in which deceased Ramsingh and these prosecution witnesses were indicted as accused. 11. It is pertinent to note that though independent witnesses were available, prosecution have examined only partisan witnesses and has adduced the evidence of interested witnesses who were proned to adopting falsehood convenient to their purpose and were proned to supress the facts. It is duty of the every witness to tell the truth when he is giving evidence in the Court. If the witness is trying to deviate from his earlier statement as well as he is trying to supress the information which is material to the case, then the Court has to be on guard while considering the evidence given by such witnesses. If they happen to be the partisan witnesses and when the prosecution has not examined independent witnesses though they were available, the acceptance of evidence of such witnesses becomes very difficult. If they happen to be the partisan witnesses and when the prosecution has not examined independent witnesses though they were available, the acceptance of evidence of such witnesses becomes very difficult. The evidence of such witnesses will not be safe to base a conviction in a serious case of a murder. 12. It is pertinent to note that it has come in the evidence of Banesingh and Ratansingh that Ramsingh was prosecuted in a murder case and for number of offences. The incident started as per the prosecution case on account of demand of money by Dulesingh from Ratahsingh and thereafter there were some bickering between Amarsingh and Hakamsingh at the house of one Bhagirath. The incident in question took place thereafter. It is pertinent to note that Ramsingh who was a reputed habitual criminal arrived in the said village when he was not resident of it. PW Ratansingh had also come from another village and by purchasing land from Dulesingh, he was doing occupation of agriculture in that village. It is also important to note that PW Banesingh was not resident of village Pir Jharol. He had also come from village Pir Nalwasa. When all these persons were going towards tube well and possessing arms after a bickering between Amarsingh and Ramsingh at the house of Bhagirath, when Ratansingh was present there, this assumes importance. Further more, when this fact has been mentioned in the FIR, but not stated by these witnesses in their evidence in the Court, it assumes more importance. At this juncture reputation of Ramsingh as a bully and habitual criminal has to- be also taken into consideration while coming to the conclusion so far as guilt and innocense of the appellants. At this juncture it is important to note that Ramsingh and Banesingh were brother-in-laws of brother of Hakamsingh and they were not original residents of village Pir Jharol. 13. Learned trial Judge has not. given due attention to this fact while appreciating the evidence on record. And, therefore, learned trial Judge misdirected himself while appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution and thereafter recording his conclusion in that context. 14. It is the prosecution evidence that appellant Dulesingh was responsible for discovery of axe in pursuance of information given by him, appellant Jadusingh was responsible for discovery of a stick in pursuance of information given by him. 14. It is the prosecution evidence that appellant Dulesingh was responsible for discovery of axe in pursuance of information given by him, appellant Jadusingh was responsible for discovery of a stick in pursuance of information given by him. So also Gajraj was responsible for discovery of a stick in pursuance of information given by him. Babusingh gave the information and in pursuance of that a stick was seized by the investigating officer from him. It is the prosecution case that these weapons were stained with blood. But prosecution has not adduced evidence on record to prove that these articles were stained with human blood. Apart from that, the deceased Ramsingh and the prosecution witnesses except Chander bai, were prosecuted for assaulting the appellants Amarsingh, Jadusingh, Dulesingh. Therefore, even presuming that those articles were stained with human blood, by its seizure by itself would not implicate them in the charge as the aggressors and. assailants. The panch witnesses did not support the evidence of investigating officer in this context and that cannot be forgotten. 15. Thus, summing up all we come to the conclusion that the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the learned trial Judge is not correct, proper and consistent with the evidence on record. Learned trial Judge has taken a wrong approach while appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution and recording a finding of guilt against the appellants, ignoring the inherent infirmities in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and, the tendency of suppressing the truth. 16. Thus, we allow the appeals, set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants and acquit them. The bail bonds furnished by them stand discharged.