Honble MATHUR, J.–This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.04.1992 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, District Ganganagar convicting the appellants of offence under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default of the payment to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. The appellants ha-ve also been convicted of offence under Section 148 I.P.C. and each of them have been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. They have been further convicted of offence under Section 364/149 I.P.C. and each of them have been sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of the payment to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. (2). At the out set, it is pointed out by Shri M.L. Garg, learned counsel for the appellants that the first appellant Dei Ram has died. In view of this the appeal filed by the Dei Ram stands abated. (3). The prosecution case in brief is that on 16.9.90 at about 12.45 A.M., P.W. 1 Guljari Lal lodged an oral First Information Report Ex. P1 at Police Station, Bhirani stating inter alia that his younger brother Bhura Ram (deceased) has gone to Adampur Mandi in the jeep. In the night at about 8.00 while after taking food he was smoking `Hooka, Rohtash P.W. 3 the son of his elder brother came and infor-med him that the jeep of his uncle Bhura Ram has been stopped by Dei Ram and his sons Krishna, Leelu Ram, Man Raj, wife of Krishna and Kashi Chamar. They are armed with lathies and Barchies and they have forcibly taken him into the house of Dei Ram. He also stated that they are beating him. He heard the voice of gun fire. He along with Ram Kumar, Ram Dayal Rohtash etc. reached near the house of Dei Ram. From inside the house, he heard the voice of Deiram, he was exhorting ``.... Nksjks ns[k yks] nqeu dgh cp uk tk,A.... (boys see that the enemy does not escape). Dei Ram was also saying that he should be finished. He threatened that if any body enters, he will be killed. He again fired. The informant further stated that he was carrying with him the licensed gun. He heard the cries of Bhura Ram coming from inside. (boys see that the enemy does not escape). Dei Ram was also saying that he should be finished. He threatened that if any body enters, he will be killed. He again fired. The informant further stated that he was carrying with him the licensed gun. He heard the cries of Bhura Ram coming from inside. They restored the confidence and some how entered in the house of Dei Ram and gave them alarm. Dei Ram etc. seeing them left the compound leaving Bhura Ram. Dei Ram and his all the sons climbed on the terrace and ran away. The Bhura Ram was smeared with blood. He was taken to the hospital in a tractor trolley, but he succumbed to the injuries near the canal. The informant also stated that there was an enmity between the parties on account of some land dealings. This was the reason that Dei Ram was unhappy with Bhura Ram. He also stated that the accused persons have taken the jeep in the compound of Dei Ram. It was further stated that along with Bhura Ram, Ram Kumar Khati was there, but he ran away out of fear. He also stated that Chatar Singh had also arrived at the spot. On this information, the police registered a case under Sections 302, 364, 147, 148, 149 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act and proceeded with the investigation. (4). P.W. 11 Atar Singh, S.H.O., Police Station, Bhirani reach on the spot and commenced the investigation. The site plan was prepared. The body of Bhura Ram was sent for the post mortem. P.W.8 Dr. Brij Mohan Choudhary conducted the auto-psy on the dead body of Bhura Ram. Post mortem report Ex. P 26 has been admitted by the defence. The post mortem report shows following injuries on the person of deceased Bhura Ram: 1. Incised wound 5" x 2 1/2" x bone deep tibia fibula cutted M. # of tibia & fibula. Rt. leg anteriorly middle portion-vertical grevious sharp. 2. Four bruises 5" x 1 1/2" each ant. side of Rt. thing TRA simple. 3. Incised wound 2 1/2" x 1/2" x bone deep M. # tibia fibula vertical Lt. leg anteriorly upper 1/3 portion grevious sharp. 4. Eight bruises 4" x 1 1/2" each intermingling each other anterior side of left thigh simple blunt. 5. Ten bruises 5 1/2" x 1 1/2" each ant. side of Rt. thing TRA simple. 3. Incised wound 2 1/2" x 1/2" x bone deep M. # tibia fibula vertical Lt. leg anteriorly upper 1/3 portion grevious sharp. 4. Eight bruises 4" x 1 1/2" each intermingling each other anterior side of left thigh simple blunt. 5. Ten bruises 5 1/2" x 1 1/2" each ant. side of stomach & thorax simple blunt. 6. Bruise 4" x 2 1/2" Post. side of Ltd. wrist Fr. Radius & ulna lower end. Grevious blunt. 7. Both the middle & Ring finger dislocated at the Rest-Grevious-blunt. 8. Two incised wounds 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/8" each medial side of left thumb at the root & left index laterally Simple Blunt. 9. Three incised wounds 1" x 1/2" x 1 1/2" post. side of Lt. Arm Simple Sharp. 10. Bruise 7" x 4" post. side of Lt. Arm Simple Blunt. 11. Four Bruises 5" x 1 1/2" on the Back & Buttock Simple Blunt. 12. Incised wound 1" x 1/2" x 14" post. side of Rt. forearm lower end Simple Sharp. 13. Six Bruises 5" x 2" each Rt. deltoide & scapular region Simple Blunt. 14. Two incised wounds 3/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" each Rt. lateral side of nose and ear. Simple Blunt. 15. Incised wounds 1" x 1/4" x bone deep Lt. lateral side of forehead. Simple sharp. 16. Incised wound 4" x 2 1/2" with flap of skin x upto bone posterior side of frontal bone. Simple Sharp. 17. Incised wounds 4 1/2" x 2 1/2" with flap skin x upto bone on the Rt. parietal bone. Simple Sharp. 18. Incised wounds 1" x 1/4" x 1/4" Lt. Ext. ear simple Sharp. 19. Incised wounds 2 1/2" x 3/4" x Bone deep Bone cutted with Fr. @ Lt. mastoide, Lt. mastoide area, Grevious Sharp. 20. Bruise 4" x 2 1/2" Lt. maxilla, Simple Blunt. 21. Incised wound 1 3/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" over later angle of Rt. eye Simple Sharp. 22. Incised wound 1 1/2" x 1/2" x 3/4" Rt. Angle of mandible cutted. Grevious Sharp. 23. Bruise 3" x 2" Rt. half of the mouth with Broken tooth. Rt. upper & lower lateral incisors. Grevious Blunt. 24. Bruise 2" x 2" over Rt. cheek. Simple Blunt. (5). In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was multiple sharp injuries causing severe haemorrhage. Angle of mandible cutted. Grevious Sharp. 23. Bruise 3" x 2" Rt. half of the mouth with Broken tooth. Rt. upper & lower lateral incisors. Grevious Blunt. 24. Bruise 2" x 2" over Rt. cheek. Simple Blunt. (5). In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was multiple sharp injuries causing severe haemorrhage. On the same day, accused Dei Ram and Kashi Ram were also examined. The doctor noticed following injuries on the body of Dei Ram vide Ex. D 4: Five round lacerated wounds on right lower leg posteriorly, including the ankle measuring 1/10" x 1/10" x muscle deep, varying in depth, enterance with slight blackening at the margins, margins inverted. Lacerted wound on right thumb anteriorly base measuring 1/10" x 1/10" x muscle deep varying in depth, enterance with inverted margins, slight blackening at the margins. 3. Abrasion on middle of the thigh posteriorly measuring 1/10" x 1/10". (6). On examination of Kashi Ram the doctor noticed following injuries vide Ex. D 5: 1. Multiple round lacerated wounds on right thing and hip posteriorly measuring 1/10" x 1/10" x muscle deep, enterance with inverted margins, blackening slight. 2. Multiple round lacerated wound on left hand posteriorly measuring 1/10" x 1/10" x muscle deep. (7). As far as injuries of both the accused, are concern they are caused by fire arm. The injuries caused to accused Dei Ram are simple whereas one of the injuries caused to Kashi Ram is grevious in nature. (8). During the course of investigation, the police also made recoveries of blood stained weapons of offence from different accused persons. They were seized and sealed and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. After completing the investigation, police laid charge sheet against six accused persons for offences under Sections 302, 364, 147, 148, 149 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. (9). The accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 12 witnesses. P.W. 1 Guljari Lal and P.W. 3 Rohtash have been examined as eye witnesses. P.W. 2 Ram Kumar is a witness, who was with the deceased till the jeep was stopped by the accused persons. P.W. 4 Ramswaroop, P.W. 5 Risal Singh, P.W. 6 Khiraj and P.W. 7 Jai Prakash are the formal police witnesses. P.W. 8 Dr. P.W. 1 Guljari Lal and P.W. 3 Rohtash have been examined as eye witnesses. P.W. 2 Ram Kumar is a witness, who was with the deceased till the jeep was stopped by the accused persons. P.W. 4 Ramswaroop, P.W. 5 Risal Singh, P.W. 6 Khiraj and P.W. 7 Jai Prakash are the formal police witnesses. P.W. 8 Dr. Brij Mohan Choudhary, is the Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy of the deceased Bhura Ram and examined the injuries of the accused Dei Ram and Kashi Ram. P.W. 9 Baldeo Singh and P.W. 10 Surat Singh are the formal witnesses. P.W.11 Atar Singh is the Investigating Officer. P.W.12 Harlal Singh is a formal police witness. (10). In statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused Dei Ram stated that they have an old enmity with Ram Dayal. There are cases pending between them. All the witnesses are from one family. He has been falsely implicated. Mst. Santro has taken the plea of alibi. She has stated that at the time of incident, she was with her parents in village Jandwala, State of Haryana. Accused Man Ram stated that at the time of incident, he was in the boarding house at Chhani. Accused Krishan Kumar stated that on 15.9.90 his wife was not at the residence. He had gone to take meal with his father. They were sitting in the compound of the house along with Leelu Ram. At that time Bhura Ram arrived and he fired at his father and Kashi Ram. They picked up sticks lying there and gave be-ating to Bhura Ram to save their lives. They left him in the compound and went to take care of their father. They did not see any body out side the house. Accused Leelu Ram stated that he along with Krishan Kumar were sitting in the compound of the house. They heard his father crying `Mare Re `Mare Re. They came out of the compound and saw that Bhura Ram, who was armed with a gun had fired at his father and Kashi Ram. They picked up the sticks lying there and gave beating to Bhura Ram. He also stated that if they had not given beating to Bhura Ram, he would have killed all of them. They came out of the compound and saw that Bhura Ram, who was armed with a gun had fired at his father and Kashi Ram. They picked up the sticks lying there and gave beating to Bhura Ram. He also stated that if they had not given beating to Bhura Ram, he would have killed all of them. Kashi Ram has stated that on 15.9.90, deceased Bhura Ram having consumed liquor was abusing out side the house of Dei Ram. He was sitting along with Dei Ram in the compound of the house. They came out and cha-llenged Bhura Ram. He left the place and returned after 10-15 minutes armed with a gun. He entered in the house sitting in the jeep armed with the gun. Seeing them, they ran towards the compound of the house. Bhura Ram fired at him and Dei Ram on account of which they sustained injuries. Bhura Ram made a second fire on account of which he sustained injury on the hand. He also stated that he became unconscious on the spot. (11). The trial Judge having found the prosecution case proved convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. Assailing the judgment, it is contended by Mr. M.L. Garg, learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution has not explained injuries on the person of accused Dei Ram and Kashi Ram and as such inference must be drawn that the prosecution has suppressed the gensis and origin of the occurrence, and thus, has not presented the true version of the incident. It is also submitted that the prosecution witnesses P.W. 1 Guljari Lal and P.W. 3 Rohtash are interested and inimical witnesses. The learned counsel has read before us the statements of both the witnesses and pointed out certain material contradictions and improvements in their statements. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel is that two witnesses i.e. P.W.1 Guljari Lal and P.W. 3 Rohtash are not wholly reliable witnesses and as such the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained on the sole testimony of these two witnesses. It is also submitted that the police took blood from the earth, seized blood stained clothes of the deceased and also blood stained weapons from each of the accused persons but the report of the F.S.L. has not been produced to show that there was human blood. It is also submitted that the police took blood from the earth, seized blood stained clothes of the deceased and also blood stained weapons from each of the accused persons but the report of the F.S.L. has not been produced to show that there was human blood. It is also argued that the prosecution has withheld material witnesses like Chatar Singh and Ram Kumar, who are said to be the eye witnesses. Learned counsel for the appe-llants has also pointed out certain serious infirmities in the prosecution case. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor Shri Panney Singh and Shri A. Upadhyaya appearing for the complainant support the judgment of the trial court. (12). We have considered the rival contentions. We have perused the record and scanned the prosecution evidence. (13). It is now well settled that the failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation regarding the injuries found on the accused may show that the evidence related to the incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true. Thus, non-explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused by the prosecution may affect the prosecution case. But such a non-explanation may assume greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. However, if the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and where the court can distinguish the truth from falsehood the mere fact that the injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself a sole basis to reject the evi-dence and consequently the whole case. Reference be made to decision of the Apex Court in Ram Sunder Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Bihar (1). It is not necessary to multiply authorities on the point. Keeping in view the aforesaid proposition of law in mind, we proceed to appreciate the prosecution evidence. (14). P.W.1 Guljari Lal, who is the brother of the deceased Bhura Ram has been produced by the prosecution as an eye witness. He has stated that in the evening while he was at the residence, Rohtash the son of his elder brother Ram Dayal arrived and informed him that his uncle Bhura Ram has been brought down from the jeep and taken to the house of Dei Ram by Krishna, Leelu Ram, Man Raj, Santro and Kashi Ram. He has stated that in the evening while he was at the residence, Rohtash the son of his elder brother Ram Dayal arrived and informed him that his uncle Bhura Ram has been brought down from the jeep and taken to the house of Dei Ram by Krishna, Leelu Ram, Man Raj, Santro and Kashi Ram. On hearing this, he took up his licensed 12 bore gun. In the way there is house of Ram Dayal. He took with him Ram Kumar the son of Ram Dayal and went infront of the house of Dei Ram. He heard the voice of exhortation of Dei Ram saying that the boys should not allow the enemy to escape and he should be finished. He also found Chatar Singh standing out side the house of Dei Ram. He heard the cries of Bhura Ram coming from the house of Dei Ram. He made entry along with others in the house of Dei Ram after making an air fire. Along with him, Ram Dayal, his sons Ram Kumar, Rohtash and Chatar Singh also entered in the house of Dei Ram. On entering in the compount of the house, they found that the accused Dei Ram, Krishna, Leelu Ram, Man Ram, Smt. Santro and Kashi Ram were giving beating to Bhura Ram. Krishna was armed with a `Kulhari. Leelu Ram, Man Raj and Santro were armed with lathies. Kashi Ram was armed with a Jelly. Dei Ram was armed with a pistol. He also stated that after entering compound of the house of Dei Ram, he again made an air fire. Thereafter the accused persons climbed on the terrace and ran away. Bhura Ram was lying smeared with blood. They brought a cot from the house of Om Prakash and laid Bhura Ram on it. They proceeded to take him to the hospital in a tractor trolley. He straight way went to the Police Station and lodged the First Information Report. A criticism has been made against this witness on the ground that a reading of the First Information Report shows that he is not an eye witness, but he has made improvement in the statement before the court and produced himself as an eye witness. In the First Information Report Ex. P1 he has simply stated that he entered in the house of Dei Ram and challenged him. In the First Information Report Ex. P1 he has simply stated that he entered in the house of Dei Ram and challenged him. Seeing him and other persons, accused Dei Ram and his three sons climbed on the terrace and ran away leaving Bhura on the spot. It is significant to notice that in the First Information Report he has not said a word if he had witnessed the actual assault by the accused persons to Bhura Ram. Not only this he has only stated that it is only Dei Ram and his three sons climbed on the terrace and ran away. He does not mention about Smt. Santro and Kashi Ram. Though it is argued that even the weapon of offences in the hands of each of the accused persons have not been mentioned in the First Information Report, but in our opinion that is not of much significance because in the First Information Report it is not necessary to give minute details of the incident. However, the witness, who claims to be an eye witness must have stated that actual incident if he had really witnessed the same. It is also pointed out that the witness has made improvement from the First Information Report that after he had made an air fire from inside ac-cused Dei Ram also fired. This material part is missing in the First Information Report. In the cross examination, he denied if accused Dei Ram or Kashi Ram sustained any injury in the course of incident. The injuries sustained by Dei Ram and Kashi Ram by the fire arm have been proved by P.W. 8 Dr. Brij Mohan vide Ex. D 4 and Ex. D5. Thus, on appreciation of the evidence of this witness, we are of the view that this witness cannot be placed in the category of wholly reliable witness. (15). P.W. 3 Rohtash has stated that Ram Kumar Khati P.W. 2 came to his house and informed his father that his uncle Bhura Ram has been forcibly taken away from the jeep by the accused Dei Ram, Kashi Ram, Krishna, Leelu Ram, Man Raj and the wife of Krishna and they were beating him. On instruction by his father, he went to inform his uncle Guljari Lal. He along with his uncle Guljari Lal proceeded to the place of incident. His uncle Guljari Lal carried with him his licensed gun. On instruction by his father, he went to inform his uncle Guljari Lal. He along with his uncle Guljari Lal proceeded to the place of incident. His uncle Guljari Lal carried with him his licensed gun. He also stated that his father Ram Dayal and elder brother Ram Kumar also accompanied them. They found Chatar Singh standing out side the house. They heard voice of exhortation of accused Dei Ram saying that the boys should see that the enemy does not escape. They also heard a gun fire from inside. From out side his uncle Guljari Lal made an air fire. Thereafter they entered in the house of Dei Ram. They saw that Dei Ram was armed with a pistol, Kashi Ram with a Jayee, Krishna with a Barchi, and Man Ram, Leelu and the wife of Krishna were armed with lathies. They all were beating Bhura Ram. Bhura Ram fell down. He also stated that Dei Ram fired towards them. Guljari Lal made an air fire. All the accused persons climbed on the terrace and ran away. Bhura Ram was lying injured smeared with blood. There were number of injuries on his body. They brought him out and proceeded to take him to the hospital in a tractor trolley. In the way, he succumbed to the injuries. A criticism has been made against this wit-ness that he has admitted in the cross examination that while Bhura Ram was lifted his clothes also were smeared with blood. He stated that this fact was disclosed to the police but police still did not seize the shirt. Another criticism made against this witness is that though he was available on 16.9.90, the police did not record the statement, but the police recorded his statement on the next day i.e. only on 17.9.90. He was confronted with certain omissions in his earlier statement Ex. D.3. He has only stated that he had given the statement in that regard, but why the police has not incorporated the same in the statement. Another criticism made against this witness is that he informed Guljari Lal about taking away of Bhura Ram by the accused persons on the basis of the information received from Ram Kumar, but this fact does not find place in the statement of P.W. 1 Guljari Lal. Another criticism made against this witness is that he informed Guljari Lal about taking away of Bhura Ram by the accused persons on the basis of the information received from Ram Kumar, but this fact does not find place in the statement of P.W. 1 Guljari Lal. He has also denied the fact that if any injury was received by accused Dei Ram or Kashi Ram in the course of the incident. The injuries on the person of Dei Ram and Kashi Ram have been proved vide Ex. D4 and D5. It is significant that he claims to be an eye witness along with P.W. 1 Guljari Lal but it is still doubtful that P.W. 1 Guljari Lal is an eye witness. In view of this, this witness can also be not placed in the category of wholly reliable witness. (16). P.W. 2 Ram Kumar has stated that he was driver on the vehicle of Munshi Ram. After taking food while he was proceeding towards the house, Bhura Ram met him. He was in a jeep. On inquiry by him, Bhura Ram disclosed that he was going towards the house of Chatar Singh. He also boarded the jeep. They went to the house of Chatar Singh but he was not available. Then they moved from the house of Chatar Singh and when they reached near the house of Dei Ram, they found the accused Leelu Ram, Krishna, Kashi Ram, Santro and Mani Raj all the four standing on the gate of the house. Leelu and Krishna gave him signal to stop the jeep, but Bhura Ram asked not to do so. Ahead of the house of Dei Ram, there is a turn in the street. At that turn, Krishna and Leelu catch hold of Bhura Ram and brought him out of the jeep. He tried to protect Bhura Ram. The jeep struck against the platform of the house of Phoola Chamar. Thereafter the accused persons took away the Bhura Ram. He, thereafter, went to the house of Ram Dayal to inform about the incident. Obviously, this witness is not an eye witness and his statement is relevant only to the extent that while the deceased as moving in the jeep, it was stopped and the accused persons took him to the house of Dei Ram. (17). He, thereafter, went to the house of Ram Dayal to inform about the incident. Obviously, this witness is not an eye witness and his statement is relevant only to the extent that while the deceased as moving in the jeep, it was stopped and the accused persons took him to the house of Dei Ram. (17). It is significant that in this case some of the material witnesses have not been produced particularly Chatar Singh, Ram Kumar and Ram Dayal. Out of these three Chatar Singh is the most important witness and according to the witnesses at the time of the incident he was standing out side the house of Dei Ram. He also entered in the house. But this witness has not been produced by the prosecution. Non-examination of such an independent witness is significant for the reason that in the instant case, the accused persons have taken a plea of right of defence and further that the prosecution has not explained the injuries on the person of the accused Dei Ram and Kashi Ram. (18). As we have found that the two witnesses are not wholly reliable witnesses and in such circumstances, their evidence is required to be corroborated by some reliable evidence. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the report of the F.S.L. has not been produced. In view of this, the evidence of recovery of the blood stained weapons and the seizure of the shirt of the deceased etc. is not available to the prosecution for the purpose of appreciation. (19). From the aforesaid discussion, it appears that the two eye witnesses are not independent eye witnesses. They are inimical and interested witnesses. They are not wholly reliable witnesses. In such circumstances, the non-examination of the injuries on the person of the accused Dei Ram and Kashi Ram is of great significance. It is further to be noticed that one of the injuries is grevious in nature. The injuries have been caused by a deadly weapon like fire arm. Thus, taking into consideration the preponderance of probabilities particularly non-explanation of the injuries on person of accused, we do not consider it to be safe to uphold the conviction of the appellants on the sole testimony of P.W. 1 Guljari Lal and P.W. 3 Rohtash. (20). The injuries have been caused by a deadly weapon like fire arm. Thus, taking into consideration the preponderance of probabilities particularly non-explanation of the injuries on person of accused, we do not consider it to be safe to uphold the conviction of the appellants on the sole testimony of P.W. 1 Guljari Lal and P.W. 3 Rohtash. (20). In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar dated 24.4.92 is quashed and set aside. The accused appellants Krishan, Leelu Ram and Kashi Ram shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Accursed Mst. Santro and Manraj @ Mani Ram are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.