JUDGMENT 1. -These two appeals are directed against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 67/78 whereby out of all the nine accused persons, the learned Judge proceeded to convict accused No. 1-Jangir Singh, accused No. 2-Darshan Singh, accused No. 4-Harpal Singh & accused No. 7-Sita Singh of the offences as mentioned below against their names. He proceeded to acquit the remaining accused persons. Darshan Singh - 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 304 Part-I IPC. Jangir Singh, Harpal Singh & Sita Singh - 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. I00/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence under section 304 Part-I r/w Section 34 IPC. 2. The prosecution in this case has examined 13 witnesses and have exhibited 45 documents. Out of all the 13 witnesses examined. PW 1 Narain Dutt, PW 7 Chanan Singh and PW 8 Hardutt Singh @ Santokh Singh are formal witnesses who have led evidence regarding preparation of the site plan on the seizure to certain articles from the place of occurrence. PW 9 Anoop Singh is the Sarpanch to prove the enmity between the parties over user of certain public land as road. PW 10 Buta Singh and PW 11 Sadul Singh are the carriers of articles to FSL, Jaipur PW 12 is Dr. K.N. Markanday to prove the homicidal death. PW 13 Ralbeere Singh is the Station House Officer, who has investigated the case. The remaining witnesses i.e. PW 2 lnder Singh, PW 3 Gurtej Singh. PW 4 Smt. Guddi, PW 5 Nihal Kaur and PW 6 Mukhtyar Singh are the eye-witnesses of the incident. It is on appreciation of evidence of these persons that the learned Judge recorded the order of conviction in relation to these four appellants. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel for both the parties. we have re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and re-scrutinised the documents. 4. At the end of para No. 17, the learned trial Judge has found that the evidence of PW 2 Inder Singh as an eye-witness is liable to be rejected. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel for both the parties. we have re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and re-scrutinised the documents. 4. At the end of para No. 17, the learned trial Judge has found that the evidence of PW 2 Inder Singh as an eye-witness is liable to be rejected. He has observed "I find the witness not only a partial one but his presence too as doubtful also. I would therefore, reject his testimony as an eye-witness in the present case.' 5. Then the learned Judge proceeds to appreciate the evidence of PW 3 Gurtej Singh and at the end of para No. 20. the learned Judge observes that the possibility of this witness being introduced as eye-witness deliberately cannot be over ruled and then it is observed "1 therefore regard his presence on the spot as highly doubtful and would therefore not like to rely upon his evidence." 6. The learned Judge then proceeds to consider the evidence of two other eye-witnesses PW 4 Km. Guddi and PW 5 Smt. Nihal Kaur in para 21 and observed at the end as under:- "It is therefore, unsafe to rely upon their interested testimony without its corroboration from other independent evidence direct or circumstantial." 7. The learned Judge has then found that material part of the version given in the FIR inspires least confidence and has found in para 25 "I. therefore, feel inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the defence that it was a subsequent development during the night and since these facts find mention in the FIR it can safely be concluded that the FIR was a post investigation document." 8. Then at the end of para 26. the learned Judge has recorded a finding that there remains least doubt that the FIR in the present case is certainly a post investigation document. 9. At the end of para 29 after elaborately appreciating the evidence of PW 6 Mukhtyar Singh. the learned Judge observed that the evidence of this witness also cannot be fully relied upon. In the light of these findings of the learned Judge, we have re-appreciated the evidence on record and we find that these findings are neither perverse nor unreasonable and the order of acquittal is recorded by the learned Judge, is proper. It calls for no interference. In the light of these findings of the learned Judge, we have re-appreciated the evidence on record and we find that these findings are neither perverse nor unreasonable and the order of acquittal is recorded by the learned Judge, is proper. It calls for no interference. However, in view of these findings, the conviction of other accused is also not correct. In such state of affairs and evidence, where most of the eye-witnesses arc liable to be disbelieved. conviction wholly on the basis of recovery, which also are erroneous in nature, would be unsafe and it would, therefore, be just and proper to acquit these accused also giving them the benefit of doubt. 10. In the result, the appeal against conviction succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is set aside. The accused are already on hail and the bail bonds are cancelled. In so far as the appeal against acquittal is concerned, the order of acquittal is just and proper and is maintained. The appeal against it is dismissed.Appeal allowed. *******