A. K. MATHUR, C. J. ( 1 ) - This is an appeal directed against judgment dated 8-3-1991 in Sessions Trial No. 98 of 1990 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh whereby learned Sessions Judge has convicted accused/appellants under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and under Section 324/34 IPC for two years rigorous imprisonment each. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 14-9-1990 in the morning at 8-9 a. m. in village Neemkhera Khirak, complainant Balaram was not in his house as he had gone to the field. A goat belonging to accused Das climbed over the roof of the house of Balaram (complainant) on that day and caused damage to its tiles. Smt. Prembai wife of Balaram protested against this to accused Das and Ganesh and the accused hurled abuses to her. In the evening of 14-9-1990 when Balaram came back to his house his father Chhakki informed him about the damage caused by the goat of accused Das to the tiles of the roof of the house. Balaram asked is father that he protested to Das or not. Thereupon Chhakki (Deceased) protested to accused Das, Parmu, Brajlal, Fosa, Ganesha and Munna who got annoyed and they came out of their house and from another direction, Balua, Asharam and Kamli came to beat Chhakki. It is alleged that accused Parmu. Brajlal and Asharam were armed with kulhadis and rest of the accused were armed with lathis. They all collected in front of the house of deceased, Chhakki under a neem tree and started beating Chakki. It is alleged that Ganesha caught hold of Chhakki from behind and accused Brajlal gave a Kulhadi blow from reverse side on his head and chest and rest of the accused persons started beating. When Balaram went to save his father Chhakki accused Asharam gave a Kulhadi blow to Balaram from the reverse side. Thereafter, Smt. Prembai, wife of Balaram and Smt. Gajiyabai, wife of Dharam also came out and saw the incident. On hearing this commotion. Hardas and Papai reached there with torch and lantern in their hands. Thereafter, Tijua, Natthu, Anandi, Bhallu Sen, Babu Khan and Dhansu Badai also came there and intervened in the matter. Deceased Chhakki received injuries and fell down on the ground. On hearing this commotion. Hardas and Papai reached there with torch and lantern in their hands. Thereafter, Tijua, Natthu, Anandi, Bhallu Sen, Babu Khan and Dhansu Badai also came there and intervened in the matter. Deceased Chhakki received injuries and fell down on the ground. It is alleged that thereafter Balaram and Dhaniram left their father Chhaki in an injured condition and went away in order to save their own lives. Chhakki after receiving injuries fell down on the ground in. front of his house. He had received injuries on chest parietal region and other parts of the body. Hardas, Papai, Anandi, aabu Khan and Tijua lifted the deceased Chhakki and took him to his house. Chhakki died at 12 p. m. in the night on that day. ( 3 ) BALARAM and Dhaniram both tried to contact, Police Station Mohangarh on telephone but they could not succeed. Therefore, at about 11-12, they reached to village Bandha where they informed about the incident to their relation Chandu and Khunni. Thereafter it started raining due to which they stopped over at village Bandha in the night. Next day i. e. on 15-9-1990 in the morning, Tijua and Bhallu Sen reached village Bandha to, inform about the death of Chhakki. There they met Balaram and Dhaniram, who were informed about the death of their father at about 12 in the night From Bandha, Balarain. Dhaniram alongwith Tijua and Bhallu Sen went to the Police Station Mohangarh arid lodged a report of the incident at 9. 30 p. m. On this, an offence under Sections 147, 148. 149, 302 and, 323 I. P. C. was registered and thereafter Police reached at the scene of occurrence and found the dead body of Chhakki lying in his house. Police preparednecessary panchnama and also prepared site plan. A requisition for post mortem of deceased Chhakki was sent. It is alleged that the dead body of Chhakki was taken in the cart for Mehangarh but near Mohangarh. Pateria Nala was flowing very high. Therefore, they could not take the dead body of Chhakki kept in a cart near Pateria Nala. On 17-9-1990 in the morning, Yasin Khan was-informed that the dead body of deceased Chhakki could not be brought to Tikamgarh for post mortem. Hence Police brought the doctor for post-mortem of deceased Chhakki. By vehicle and then post mortem was done on the cart. On 17-9-1990 in the morning, Yasin Khan was-informed that the dead body of deceased Chhakki could not be brought to Tikamgarh for post mortem. Hence Police brought the doctor for post-mortem of deceased Chhakki. By vehicle and then post mortem was done on the cart. ( 4 ) DURING the course of investigation accused, persons were arrested from their field on 18-9-1990. On the information given by the accused persons, lathis and kulhadis were recovered and seized. After close of investigation, Police filed a challan against nine accused persons, Prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses and defence examined one witness. The learned Sessions Judge, after due trial, convicted and sentenced the appellants/accused as aforesaid and acquitted other accused persons of the charge under Sections 302/ 149 and 324/149 I. P. C. Hence, the present appeal by the accused Munna, Brajalal and Asharam. ( 5 ) WE have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. The prosecution examined P. W. 1 balaram, P. W. 2 Dhani ram and PO. W. 3 Smt. Prembai as the principal eye-witnesses of the case. P. W. 1 balaram has deposed that on the fateful day, in the morning, when goat belonging to accused Das climbed on the roof of his house and caused damage to the tiles and when in the evening after his return from the well. He was informed by his father Chhakki about the incident. There upon, he asked his father whether he recorded the protest or not. His father Chhakki informed him that the did not register the protest and he would do it now. He has deposed that his father Chhakki protested against the incident to Das which annoyed accused Das and he came to the door of his house. He has deposed that accused Das was accompanied by Ganesh, Fosa, Munna, balua, Parmu Brajlal and kamli. Accused Ganesha and Parmu with kulhadis in their hands and rest were armed with lathis. He has deposed that thereafter accused persons beat his father with kulhadis and lathis. Accused Ganesha gave kulhadi blow on the head and parmu gave kulhadi blow on the chest of Chhakki. Chhakki fell down and then he was beaten by lathis. Accused Ganesha and Parmu with kulhadis in their hands and rest were armed with lathis. He has deposed that thereafter accused persons beat his father with kulhadis and lathis. Accused Ganesha gave kulhadi blow on the head and parmu gave kulhadi blow on the chest of Chhakki. Chhakki fell down and then he was beaten by lathis. He has deposed that when he went out to rescue his father Chhakki accused Ganesha gave kulhadi blow on his head, accused gave a lathi blow on the left calf and accused Asharam gave lathi blow on his left thumb, he has deposed that at that time P. W. 6 Hardas came and rescued him. He has also deposed that P. W. 2 Dhaniram (his brother) came out and he was also assaulted by accused Asharam by a Kulhadi and hi received injury on his head. Thereafter some person namely P. W. 6 Hardas P. W. 7 Papai and P. W. 8 Nathu came there and rescued him he has deposed that all accused persons ran away from the place. Thereafter the dead body of Chhakki was put in the house and he and his brother went to report the mater to the police. Both the them went to Nandwara for informing the police on telephone but they could not succeed and there fore they made the report on the next day. He has deposed that because of rains they could not cross pateria nala and dead body remained there and doctor was brought there for post mortem. P. W. 1 was specifically confronted on the point that it was right and no one could see as to who were the accused person but explanation was given that at that time in their house there was light of the lamp. He was confronted with his police case diary statement and he has denied to have said that Ganesha was armed with lathi Lime wise he has denied that accused Asharam and brajlal were armed with kulhadis. He has stated that they were armed with lathis. He was also confronted that it is wrong to say that Dhanbiram was beaten by kulhadi parmua. He was cross examined at length and he has contradicted his police statement at various places. He has stated that they were armed with lathis. He was also confronted that it is wrong to say that Dhanbiram was beaten by kulhadi parmua. He was cross examined at length and he has contradicted his police statement at various places. He has also denied the suggestion that he alongwith his father went to there house of Das and threatened him that since his goat damaged the tiles of the roof of his house they would break his head. ( 6 ) P. W. 2 Dhaniram, who is brother of P. W. 1 balaram and son of deceased Chhakki has also by and large supported the version given out by P. W. 1 balaram he has deposed that his father was given a kulhadi blow on the head and as soon as he heard the cries, he came out and saw that all the nine accused persons were beating his father and therefore he went to rescue him. Then Ganesha gave a kulhadi blow on his head from reverse side and accused munna tave a lathi blow on the head of balaram. He has also deposed that accused munna also gave a kulhadi blow on the head of Balaram. He has further deposed that he cried for help which brought on the scene hardas, Anandi, papai and natthu etc. he has deposed that on the next day the went to file report of the incident at the Police Station He was also confronted with his police case diary statement specifically on the point that there was no kulhadi injury and all the injuries were by blunt object. ( 7 ) P. W. 3 Smt. Prembai is the wife of P. W. 1 balaram She has deposed that in the morning some of the goats belonging to accused Das damaged the roof tiles of her house, therefore, her father-in- law had gone to protest and there he was beaten by Ganesha, Ashram, balua, Fosa, kamli etc. She has deposed that Ganesha gave first blow on the deceased with the reverse side of Kulhadi and rest of the accused persons gave lathi blows and thereafter, nattu, hardas, papai and nandia came to rescue him. She has deposed that accused Ganesha and Asha gave kulhadi blows to her husband and Dhaniram. She has denied the factum that this beating was incited by her husband and brother-in-law P. W. 2 Dhaniram. She has deposed that accused Ganesha and Asha gave kulhadi blows to her husband and Dhaniram. She has denied the factum that this beating was incited by her husband and brother-in-law P. W. 2 Dhaniram. ( 8 ) P. W. 4 Tijua is another witness and he has deposed that on the fateful day, the nine accused persons, some armed with lathis and some with kulhadis came to the house of deceased Chhakki. He has deposed that accused Ganesha and parmu were parmu were having kulhadis and rest of them were having lathis. He has deposed that deceased Chhakki abused Fosa and Fosa was saying to pull out his tongue. Chhakki came out of his house and then accused Fosa Ganesha, munna, Das, Brajlal, parmua, balua kamli and Asha came there and gave him beating. He has admitted that at the time when this beating was given. It was dark; but he has volunteered to say that at that time, one lantern at the house of Chhakki was there and Hardas was having a torch hence he could see and identify accused persons. He has deposed that at that time only three persons were there in the house of Chhakki Ganesha and Fosa and thereafter Dhaniram and balaram came out from their house he has denied that any verbal exchanges took place. ( 9 ) P. W. 6 Hardas who is said to have reached at the scene of occurrence has supported the version given by other prosecution witnesses. But he admits that it was dark and he could identify the accused with the help of torch. He was confronted with his police statement at number of places to discredit his testimony. He admitted that his eyes are normal and he could see that accused persons. He has deposed that deceased Chhakki was belaboured by Ganesha, Asha, Munn Brajlal and kamli. He was confronted with his police case diary statement in regard to his statement that Ganesha and Munn a are said to have death with kulhadis from reverse side. He has stated that Ganesha and Munna had kulhadis in their hands. ( 10 ) P. W. 7 papai has deposed that while sitting in his house. He heard exchange of abusive language between the parties. He has deposed that he heard the voice of Fosa. He has stated that Ganesha and Munna had kulhadis in their hands. ( 10 ) P. W. 7 papai has deposed that while sitting in his house. He heard exchange of abusive language between the parties. He has deposed that he heard the voice of Fosa. On hearing commotion he alongwith Natthu and Hardas reached near the house of Chhakki and thereafter accused Fosa, Ganesha, Munna, arajlal Das. Dalua, Kamli and Asha came on the scene and then beating started. It is stated by him that Ganesha and Munna were armed with kulhadis and rest with lathis. He has deposed that deceased Chhakki was belaboured by accused Ganesha by the reverse side of Kulhadi and accused Munna also gave Kulhadi blow from the reverse side and he tried to protest but without any result. ( 11 ) P. W. 8 Natthu was also confronted with his police statement which he denied to have given before the Police that Ganesha and Munna gave kulhadi blows on the head of deceased Chhakki. He has supported the version given by other witnesses. ( 12 ) P. W. 5 Dr. S. K. Khare who examined the injuries of deceased has deposed that on the relevant day he conducted the post mortem on the person of deceased Chhakki near Pateria Nala. He has deposed that there was a contusion on the right shoulder measuring 4 x 1/2. On cutting of his injury he found that there was ecchymosis-6t x 1_1/2"1. There were fractures of mandible 1/2 c. m. medial to the angle nasal bone etc. The cause of death according to the doctor was fracture of nasal bone. P. W. 5 Dr. Khare also examined injuries of Balaram. Balaram is said to have received contusions on the frontal head left thumb and right tibia. P. W. 5 Dr. Khare also examined the injuries of P. W. 2 Dhaniram. He found a contusion on the left side of the forehead measuring i" x 1/2. The injuries were stated to have been caused by hard and blunt object. ( 13 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge after survey of all evidence on record found that the injuries were caused by the three accused persons namely Munna. Brajlal and Asharam and accordingly convicted them. The injuries were stated to have been caused by hard and blunt object. ( 13 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge after survey of all evidence on record found that the injuries were caused by the three accused persons namely Munna. Brajlal and Asharam and accordingly convicted them. Learned counsel for the appellants has taken us through all the evidence and has submitted that in fact the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence for the simple reason that the prosecution has changed its version from the one given in the F. I. R. and that given during the trial. It was also submitted that it was a dark night and it was not possible to identify which of the accused took part in this beating. He also submitted that the accused persons are said to have caused axe blows on the person of the deceased but there is no incised injury on his person. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions given by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the cases of Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab and Nachhettar Singh v. State of Puryab, ( 14 ) WE have examined the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and we are of the opinion that submissions made by the learned counsel have substance. P. W. 1 Balaram who filed the FIR has given out a version in Court that on the relevant day in the evening at about 8 to 9 p. m. when his father had gone to protest to the accused party for causing damage to the tiles of the roof of his house all accused armed with lathis and kulhadis came over and beat his father with lathis and kulhadis. At that time Ganesha was armed with axe and he gave blow with it on the head of his father Chhakki and Parmu who was armed with kulhadi gave blows on the chest of his father and then other accused persons beat him with lathis. His father shouted for help and thereupon he and his brother Dhaniram rushed to rescue their father. At that time accused Ganesha caused him kulhadi blow on his head accused Munnaand Asharam gave lathi blows. Thereafter when his brother Dhaniram came out, he was also given kulhadi blow by accused Asharam. His father shouted for help and thereupon he and his brother Dhaniram rushed to rescue their father. At that time accused Ganesha caused him kulhadi blow on his head accused Munnaand Asharam gave lathi blows. Thereafter when his brother Dhaniram came out, he was also given kulhadi blow by accused Asharam. However, in the FIR a different version has been given that when his father came out of his house to protest accused. Ganesha who was armed with lathi caught hold of his father from back side and accused Brijlal hit his father on chest and head by kulhadi from reverse side. When his father cried for help, he rushed out, and he was given a kulhadi blow by accused Asharam from reverse side of kulhadi and likewise when his brother Dhaniram came out he was also dealt with a kulhadi blow on his head by accused Asharam from reverse side. ( 15 ) ALL the prosecution witnesses have during the trial developed the above version that Ganesha and Asharam were armed with kulhadis and they gave kulhadi blows on the deceased. Witnesses have changed their version that the accused persons gave blows with axe and lathis. As per medical report, there is no incised wound on the body of the deceased or any other injured. It is unfortunate that the prosecution has not brought forward the true and correct picture and the version given out by the witnesses has been given a new theory developed during the trial that the injuries were caused by kulhadis but there is no injury by sharp edged weapon. This gives total lie to the prosecution story. Neither the deceased nor the injured Balaram and Dhaniram had any incised wounds caused by kuihadis. Rest of the accused were said to be armed with lathis. Since the injuries caused on the body of the deceased as well as other injured persons were not found to be incised the prosecution witnesses have improved the version and totally contradicted their earlier version given in police statements. This shows serious infirmity in the prosecution version and. renders the prosecution story untrustworthy and unreliable. Since the injuries caused on the body of the deceased as well as other injured persons were not found to be incised the prosecution witnesses have improved the version and totally contradicted their earlier version given in police statements. This shows serious infirmity in the prosecution version and. renders the prosecution story untrustworthy and unreliable. ( 16 ) SOME of the prosecution witnesses have deposed that the time of the incident was 7 to 8 p. m. and some of them have deposed that it was 8 to 9 p. m. In the month of September, it becomes fairly dark and it is unthinkable that the prosecution witnesses could identify the accused persons. When this fact was confronted to the prosecution witnesses, they came out with the explanation that there was a small lantern in the house of the deceased and Hardas (P. W. 6) had a torch with him, as such they could identify the accused. This also appears to be preposterous that with the help of twinkling light of lantern and the torch they could establish the identity of accused is not worth believing. Identity of the accused therefore appears to be doubtful. ( 17 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge has also noticed apparent contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses and he has acquitted the six accused persons. When there are large number of prosecution witnesses and they are not consistent in their version, then it castes a doubt in regard to the identity of the accused persons and on such a shaky testimony of the prosecution witnesses it would not be safe to convict the accused/appellants. We have also examined this aspect and we are of the opinion that in fact the statements of all the prosecution witnesses appear to the unreliable any they do not inspire confidence specially in the circumstances when it was dark night at the time of the incident and there are serious contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses given out in the F. I. R and during the trial. The learned Sessions Judge has also not found their testimony to the reliable one and has acquitted the six accused persons. In these circumstances, it is not safe to convict the three appellants also and we are inclined to give all the three appellants benefit of doubt. The learned Sessions Judge has also not found their testimony to the reliable one and has acquitted the six accused persons. In these circumstances, it is not safe to convict the three appellants also and we are inclined to give all the three appellants benefit of doubt. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of their lord ships of Supreme Court in the case of balaka Singh (supra) wherein it is observed that the Court should separate grain from the chaff i. e. it should take out truth from the falsehood. It was observed that when the truth is inseparable from the falsehood. Then in that case the benefit should be given to the accused. Having examined the statements of the prosecution witnesses, we are satisfied that because of the fact that it was dark night and identity of the accused was very doubtful and that the prosecution has tried to change its version given out in the F. I. R. and during the trial the whole prosecution story is falsified. Hence, all the accused/appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. ( 18 ) CONSEQUENTLY, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions judge and acquit all the accused/appellants be released forth with if they are not required in any other case. Appeal allowed. .