S. C. DATTA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants are twenty in number. All of them stood trial before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar for offences under Sections 148, 323/324 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code (for short the "i. P. C. " ). They were convicted by the trial Court thereunder and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each on each count and the sentences were to run concurrently. They have moved this Court in appeal in the year 1986. Of the appellants, appellants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 expired during pendency of the appeal. ( 2 ) ANY way, the case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 21-11-1981 at about 3 p. m. when the informant (P. W. 2) was returning from the land of Mohanahada along with Jayanta Padhan (P. W. 5) Radha Mohan Nayak (P. W. 8), Biswanath Sahu and Banchhanidhi Sahu after cutting paddy and approaching Nupokhari to take their bath, suddenly 30 to 40 persons being armed with vali, bombs, gun and lathis rushed towards them abusing. Accused Purna Dalal First fired from his gun towards them and when they were fleeing towards village Dinabandhu Chhotray hurled a bomb. The informant noticed that all the accused persons were in the crowd and all of them chased the informant and his party men. According to the prosecution, the informant Jayanta and Radha Mohan Nayak were injured due to firing from the gun and explosion of bomb. Accused persons entered into their Sahi and threw bombs and fired gun at the houses. Arjun Khatei (P. W. 2) lodged the written report with the then officer-in-charge of Begunia Police Station at the spot, who was coming there in connection with investigation of another case. On the basis of the written report, a case was registered and investigation started. In course of investigation some incriminating materials were seized from the spot by the police and the injured persons were sent to the doctor for medical examination. The investigation ended in filing of the charge-sheet against the accused persons. Later accused persons were put to trial. ( 3 ) THE defence was a plea of innocence. The case as put forth by the defence was that on the alleged date of occurrence and at the alleged time the informant and his party men being armed with deadly weapons viz. Lathi, bomb etc. attacked them. Later accused persons were put to trial. ( 3 ) THE defence was a plea of innocence. The case as put forth by the defence was that on the alleged date of occurrence and at the alleged time the informant and his party men being armed with deadly weapons viz. Lathi, bomb etc. attacked them. When they were within Badah of the Jagannath Temple of the village, they threw bombs and fired from gun. The bomb exploded and one Karunakar Patra was hit by the splinters. He sustained injuries and ultimately he succumbed to the same. For this a case was registered against the complainant party. Accused persons alleged that the complainant party have falsely implicated them in a bid to save themselves from punishment. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined nine witnesses in all. Of them P. Ws. 7 and 9 are the investigating Officers, while P. W. 8 is the doctor, who examined the injured persons on police requisition. P. W. 1 is a seizure witness. It appears that the learned Court below believed the prosecution case and held the present appellants guilty of charges, convicted them thereunder and sentenced them to imprisonment as aforesaid. ( 5 ) THE legality of the order of conviction and sentence has been challenged in this appeal. As noticed earlier there were twenty appellants in this case. Of whom three died during the pendency of the appeal. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the appeal was filed way back 1986 and remained pending on long in the Court. Any way, it is not disputed that there is a political rivalry between two groups of people in the village. The complainant party belongs to congress party, whereas the accused persons were communists. The political rivalry between two groups of persons continues for long. The prosecution witnesses, who are said to be ocular witnesses were all accused in the counter case, instituted by the accused persons. It appears that the learned trial Judge based the conviction on the basis of evidence adduced by the ocular witnesses, viz. P. Ws. 2 to P. W. 6 who are all accused in the counter case instituted on the complaint of Gagan Nayak. It is not disputed that the parties were inimical towards each other since long. It transpires from the evidence that this is a counter case to the case already instituted by Gagan Nayak. P. Ws. 2 to P. W. 6 who are all accused in the counter case instituted on the complaint of Gagan Nayak. It is not disputed that the parties were inimical towards each other since long. It transpires from the evidence that this is a counter case to the case already instituted by Gagan Nayak. It transpires further that two cases were instituted out of the same incident; one instituted by the present complainant and the other by their adversary, Gagan Nayak. Ext. 1 is the F. I. R. in the counter case. It appears that the parties indulged in free fighting and bombs thrown indiscriminately resulting in the death of Karunakar Patra, who belonged to the camp of present accused persons. In the present case, the prosecution has not given genesis of the case. Rather it has tried to suppress the fact, inasmuch as, not a single word was uttered regarding the fact that both the parties indulged in free fighting on the date and hour of the incident. It may be remembered that in the case of free fight between two rival groups when the eye witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are biased and inimical to the accused persons and were facing prosecution in relation to the same occurrence in a cross case instituted against them, their evidence has to be scrutinised very cautiously. The evidence of infirm witnesses does not become reliable merely because it has been corroborated by a number of witnesses of the same brand. Their evidence is to be weighed and not counted. Here in this case all the so-called eye witnesses were accused in the counter case. ( 6 ) AS noticed earlier, prosecution has suppressed the fact and did not disclose the genesis of the case. It has been alleged by the prosecution that suddenly the accused persons arrived at the spot and threw bombs towards them and fired from gun. No independent person of the locality comes forward to support the prosecution case. Radha Charan Routray said to be the scribe of the F. I. R. has not been examined though he was present in Court. No explanation has been offered as to why he has not been examined. In- formant P. W. 2 states that after the gun shot hit him he took shelter in the house of Radha Charan Routray. Radha Charan Routray said to be the scribe of the F. I. R. has not been examined though he was present in Court. No explanation has been offered as to why he has not been examined. In- formant P. W. 2 states that after the gun shot hit him he took shelter in the house of Radha Charan Routray. The said Radha Charan Routray has not been examined for reasons best known to the prosecution. The incident allegedly occurred at 3 p. m. and the F. I. R. was lodged with the police at 9 p. m. The police station is only ten kilometers away from the place of occurrence. Not a single word was uttered to explain the delay in lodging the F. I. R. It is said that the accused Purna Dalal fired from his gun. It appears from the evidence of the Investigating Officer that P. W. 2 the informant did not tell him that Purna Dalal fired gun at him. It is not disputed that no incriminating material, not to speak of any gun, was recovered from the possession of any of the accused persons by the police. ( 7 ) AS noticed earlier, the trial Court considered the prosecution witnesses to be truthful and as such reliable but it overlooked the fact that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are accused in the counter case. They have suppressed the genesis of the case and there has been delay in lodging the F. I. R. No independent witness has been examined to support the prosecution case. It may be observed that in a faction ridden society where an occurrence takes place involving rival faction it is but inevitable that the evidence would be of a partisan nature. Here, in this case, the circumstances demonstrates that the so called ocular witnesses are partisan and they are interested in securing conviction of the accused persons. One of the members of the accused party died as a result of bomb explosion. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances, it is difficult to believe the testimony of the so-called eye-witnesses and to convict the accused persons. I have no hesitation to conclude that the trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused persons. In view of the circumstances detailed above, the trial Court, in my opinion, ought to have returned a verdict of not guilty. I have no hesitation to conclude that the trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused persons. In view of the circumstances detailed above, the trial Court, in my opinion, ought to have returned a verdict of not guilty. In my view the appellants are entitled to succeed. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal succeeds and the order of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellants be discharged from their respective bail bonds. Appeal allowed. .