JUDGMENT : K.R. Vyas, J. The State of Gujarat has filed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 14-8-1991 passed in Sessions Case No.56 of 1990 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, acquitting the respondent-accused of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 149 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court at the time of hearing as to admission of this appeal, admitted the appeal only against accused Nos.1 and 2 and dismissed it as against the other accused. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell can be stated as under: Deceased Bhogibhai hired one Ambassador car from Ahmedabad on 27-5-90 and after visiting 2-3 villages reached village Adariyana of Dasada taluka at about 8.45. It was driven by one Baldevbhai Chunilal (PW 11, Ex.34). When the car entered the village, a police party with a jeep car was standing there and the deceased was talking with the police. The complainant as well as the deceased both went inside the village and saw a truck opposite to their car in the narrow lane. Since it was not possible for the Ambassador car to proceed further, Baldevbhai took the car in the right hand side lane. However, the truck dashed with car twice. Baldevbhai as well as the deceased both came out from the car in a frightened condition. Two persons came out from the truck with weapons like Khampali and a pipe and they attacked the deceased with their weapons. It is further say of the complainant that two or three persons also came out from the truck with stick as well as pipe. The complainant, realising danger, straight went to the police party and informed PSI Pankaj Bhikhubhai (PW 18, Ex.40) about the incident. At the instance of PSI, four policemen went to the site. In the meantime, the truck passed through the place where they were standing. The complainant immediately informed the PSI about the involvement of the truck in the offence. Accordingly PSI tried to stop the truck. However, the driver did not stop the truck. PSI chased the truck upto some distance. As the truck could not be traced, the police party returned. The complainant thereafter went to Zinzuwada Police Station and lodged his complaint with Kantilal Hiralal (PW 17, Ex.42) of Dasada Police Station. Accordingly PSI tried to stop the truck. However, the driver did not stop the truck. PSI chased the truck upto some distance. As the truck could not be traced, the police party returned. The complainant thereafter went to Zinzuwada Police Station and lodged his complaint with Kantilal Hiralal (PW 17, Ex.42) of Dasada Police Station. As Pankaj Bhikhubhai, PSI Dasada Police Station, was also holding the charge of Zinzuwada Police Station, he started usual investigation and after completion of the same and on finding prima facie case against the accused, submitted a charge-sheet against them to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bajana who later on committed the same to the Court of Session, Surendranagar for trial. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, framed charge Ex.3 against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Additional Sessions Judge at the end of the trial, after appreciating the evidence on record, was of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, by his judgment and order of acquittal acquitted all the accused. 4. Having gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to which our attention is invited by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, we are of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons for passing the order of acquittal warranting no interference by this Court. The four witnesses who claimed to be eye witnesses viz (i) Baldevbhai Chunilal (PW 11, Ex.34), (ii) Ramilaben Shah (PW 4, Ex.21), (iii) Girishkumar Rasiklal (PW 12, Ex.35) and (iv) Kanaiyalal Amrutlal (PW 13,Ex.36) have, in our opinion, in no way supported the prosecution case. 5. Baldevbhai Chunilal (PW 11, Ex.34) was the driver of the truck which was hired by the deceased. In his presence the incident took place. He has totally given gobye to his police statement. The incident in question had taken place during night hours in a small village and, the complainant being a stranger to the accused, it was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to hold identification parade to identify the accused. However, no identification parade was held and the complainant identified accused Nos.1 and 2, for the first time in the Court, as the persons who came out from the truck. However, no identification parade was held and the complainant identified accused Nos.1 and 2, for the first time in the Court, as the persons who came out from the truck. Even though the complainant informed PSI Pankajbhai, who was very much there at village Adariyana, about the incident, and even though the a case of cognisable offence was disclosed, the PSI did not record the FIR and on the contrary asked the complainant to go to Zinzuwada village, at a distance of about 40 kms from the scene of offence, and to file complaint there. The complainant went to Zinzuwada by bus and informed Prabhashanker (PW 14, Ex.37) and Harishanker, two brothers of the deceased of whom one went to the police station and lodged the complaint. The complainant, in his cross-examination, has clearly admitted that at the time of the incident many persons collected there and he had not seen the two brothers of the deceased there. However, in his police statement, he has categorically stated that many persons including the brothers of Bhogilal were present. He has also admitted that he came to know from the brothers of Bhogilal that there was a murder case of Shankerbhai Ajmalbhai the father of the present respondent accused Nos.1 and 2 and many persons were involved in the said case and that deceased Bhogilal was one of them and that because of that this incident has taken place. Even though he has stated this fact in his police statement, he has denied it in his evidence. If the brothers of the deceased were present when the incident took place, we fail to understand why they had not filed the complaint and what was the need for the complainant to go to Zinzuwada and to meet the elder brother of the deceased and thereafter to file the complaint. As stated above, PSI Pankajbhai was very much present at village Adariyana and he was in fact incharge of Dasada Outpost as well as Zinzuwada Police Station. Instead of asking the complainant to go to Zinzuwada, he could have as well recorded the complaint, but nothing was done and, on the contrary, he allowed the time to lapse. As stated above, PSI Pankajbhai was very much present at village Adariyana and he was in fact incharge of Dasada Outpost as well as Zinzuwada Police Station. Instead of asking the complainant to go to Zinzuwada, he could have as well recorded the complaint, but nothing was done and, on the contrary, he allowed the time to lapse. Even though the complainant has stated in his evidence that he halted for the whole night at the police station and went to the scene of offence at or about 7.30 on the next day morning, when he was confronted with his further statement, he admitted that he was at Zinzuwada at the house of Prabhashanker the brother of the deceased for the whole night. In view of this, if the complainant had stayed with Prabhashanker and the other brother of the deceased had accompanied the complainant to the police station for the purpose of filing the complaint and admittedly the deceased was one of the accused in the murder case of the father of the appellants, the false involvement of the accused at the instance of the brothers of the deceased through the complainant cannot be ruled out. Thus in view of the contradictions and improvements in the evidence of the complainant, it is not safe to rely on his evidence. 6. Ramilaben Sevantilal Shah (PW 4, Ex.21) has been examined by the prosecution who, according to the prosecution, was the eye witness to the incident which had taken place just near the Ota of her house and she in fact witnessed the same. Having perused her evidence, we are of the view that she has totally supported the defence. Even though she saw the incident, i.e. dashing of the truck with the car, and that the two persons coming out from the truck, and heard the hot exchange of words between them, and yet she has stated that she does not know whether two persons who came out from the truck had weapons with them or not and whether there was scuffle between the truck people and the car people. She had not seen anything further. When she again came out, she saw deceased Bhogilal on the road in an injured condition. Without declaring this witness hostile, her attention was drawn to her police statement and she had denied that the truck people had weapons with them. She had not seen anything further. When she again came out, she saw deceased Bhogilal on the road in an injured condition. Without declaring this witness hostile, her attention was drawn to her police statement and she had denied that the truck people had weapons with them. She has also denied that 4 to 5 people had come with weapons from the truck. Admittedly she belongs to village Adariyana and therefore she knew deceased Bhogilal. She has in no unequivocal terms deposed that the two persons who got down from the truck were not the accused and none of the five accused were the person who got down from the truck and that those two persons were known to her. Thus the identity of none of the accused is established even though the accused were known to the witness. 7. Similarly the evidence of other two witnesses Girishkumar Rasiklal (PW 12, Ex.35) and Kanaiyalal Amratlal (PW 13, Ex.36), who claimed to be eye witnesses, in our opinion, do not inspire any confidence and their presence at the scene of offence is absolutely doubtful. According to Girishkumar, he had gone to Adariyana for the purposes of collecting money being the sale price of utensils from trader Babubhai Dosabhai. When he reached the village at about 8.45 p.m. and was waiting at the bus-stand, he heard some hue and cry. So he went to see the same. He saw all the accused beating Bhogilal. According to him, accused No.1 was having a tomy while other two persons were having Khampali. He identified the accused in the Court by stating that as they used to come to his shop he knew them. He has further stated that he also met Prabhashanker, the brother of the deceased and narrated the incident to him. He has not given the details about the weapons used by the accused. Now in the instant case the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of Babubhai Dosabhai to whom this witness Girishkumar had gone to collect the money. On the contrary the defence has examined said Babubhai Dosabhai (DW 1, Ex.69), who has stated that he never purchased utensils on credit from this witness Girishkumar and that there were no outstanding dues from him to Girishkumar. The presence of Girishkumar at the scene of incident is not stated in the complaint. On the contrary the defence has examined said Babubhai Dosabhai (DW 1, Ex.69), who has stated that he never purchased utensils on credit from this witness Girishkumar and that there were no outstanding dues from him to Girishkumar. The presence of Girishkumar at the scene of incident is not stated in the complaint. Thus, it would not be safe to rely on the evidence of this witness Girishkumar as, in our opinion, he is a chance witness. 8. As far as the evidence of Kanaiyalal (PW 13, Ex.36) is concerned, in our opinion, he is not a natural witness but also a chance witness. According to him he went to Adariyana in the evening by scooter to meet his father-in-law and was waiting for him at the bus-stand. Because of hearing of hue and cry near the Panchayat office, he went there and saw the accused beating the deceased Bhogilal in the bazar. The assailants were having tomy and Khampali. This witness did identify the accused as assailants. However, he has not identified the muddamal weapons in the Court. Even though he had gone to the bus-stand to see his father-in-law as his father-in-law did not come there, he could not meet him. According to him he informed about the incident to Prabhashanker the brother of the deceased. Surprisingly this witness had not seen the police jeep at the Panchayat office. This witness had also not informed the police about the incident. This witness had also not given the details about a particular accused giving blows to the deceased. Reading his evidence, it appears that he has admitted that his statement was read over to him by the police on the day of his evidence. However he has denied that he is deposing accordingly. Therefore, it clearly transpires that even though his father-in-law serving in Police Department at Ahmedabad was to come from Ahmedabad, he had not come. In view of his own admission that Zinzuwada does not fall in the way from Patdi to Dasada via Vadgam through Adariyana, his prersence at Adariyana itself is a doubtful proposition. He has in fact admitted in his evidence that he does not know if Ahmedabad-Zinzuwada bus reaches Zinduwada at 6.45. Arrival of his father-in-law was not known to him and from S.T.bus stand where he was standing, the scene of offence could not be seen. He has in fact admitted in his evidence that he does not know if Ahmedabad-Zinzuwada bus reaches Zinduwada at 6.45. Arrival of his father-in-law was not known to him and from S.T.bus stand where he was standing, the scene of offence could not be seen. The fact that he did not inform about the incident would create doubt about his presence. Thus the evidence of the so-called eye witnesses Girishkumar and Kanaiyalal, in our opinion, does not inspire any confidence. Their presence at the time of the incident is a doubtful proposition. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also not believed their evidence. Both these witnesses Girishkumar and Kanaiyalal gave the names of five assailants to Prabhashanker the brother of the deceased. Now the complainant Baldevbhai's version is to the effect that there were only two persons. However, name of one was given by Prabhashanker and that too on suspicion and on this statement the complainant is contradicted in his evidence that he had not given the names of the assailants in his police statement. It is clear from the evidence that the complaint was given at the instance of Prabhashanker as well as Harishanker the two brothers of the decreased. In other words, the complainant Baldevbhai, before filing the complaint, had in fact met Prabhashanker. The Investigation Officer has also in fact admitted that both the brothers of the deceased had in fact come to the scene of offence. In view of this state of affairs and especially when deceased Bhogilal was one of the accused in the murder case of the father of accused Nos.1 and 2, the possibility of falsely involving the accused by Prabhashanker and Harishanker cannot be ruled out. Thus, the prosecution case is not free from doubt. Considering all the aspects of the case, we are convinced without any manner of doubt that no case is made out against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Judge has by giving cogent and convincing reasons passed the order of acquittal. Suffice it to say that we are in total agreement with the reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Even if the other view is possible, this being an acquittal appeal, it is not possible for us to reverse the order of acquittal on the evidence on record. Suffice it to say that we are in total agreement with the reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Even if the other view is possible, this being an acquittal appeal, it is not possible for us to reverse the order of acquittal on the evidence on record. Since we are in agreement with the reasons of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it is not necessary for us to renarrate the same. There being no substance in this appeal, it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.