Judgment V.G. Palshikar, J.-This is an appeal against acquittal by the State of Rajasthan arising out of Sessions Case No. 42/79 decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh Camp Chittorgarh on 5-2-1980 acquitting all the accused persons (eight in number) in the sessions case of all the charges levelled against them. The accused persons were charged under Section 302 read with Sections 148 and 149,IPC and Sections 27 and 3 read with Sections 25 and 29 of the Arms Act. The learned Judge on appreciation of the evidence, acquitted all the eight accused persons and this appeal was preferred against that order by the State in 1980. This appeal came up for grant of special leave on 28-7-1980. The Division Bench then observed vide a speaking order of that date as under : Heard Mr. M.D. Purohit learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the Judgment passed in this case by the Sessions Judge Pratapgarh on 5-2-1980 by which the non petitioners Nos. 1 to 8 were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them by the trial Court. Upon perusal of the Judgment we are satisfied that Goliya, Baliya Nanunath, Sojiya, Ganganath, Smt. Sajani and Prithvi Singh non-petitioners were rightly acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, in the alternative 302 read with Section 149, IPC and under Section 29 of the Arms Act. The trial Judge has given good reasons with which we fully agree for not holding the aforesaid non petitioners guilty of the above mentioned offences and we see absolutely no reason to take a different view specially when the prosecution could not lead satisfactory evidence to show that they or any one of them took part in the commission of the crime of murder. The evidence against them is that they were present at the time of occurrence and they had gone there to secure money non credit from the deceased. Consequently we find no justification for interference with the findings of the trial Judge as to their innocence. The leave sought by the State against these non petitioners Nos. 2 to 8 is therefore refused. The case of Hajari alias Mithiya stands on different footings. Consequently we find no justification for interference with the findings of the trial Judge as to their innocence. The leave sought by the State against these non petitioners Nos. 2 to 8 is therefore refused. The case of Hajari alias Mithiya stands on different footings. In our opinion leave to this Court against his acquittal should be granted, consequently we accept the application for leave to appeal filed by the State against his acquittal only under Sections 148,302 and 302/149, IPC and Sections 25 and 3/27 of the Arms Act. Register the appeal against Hajari alias Mithiya Respondent only and issue bailable warrant in the amount of Rs. 5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) against Hajari alias Mithiya Respondent to enforce his attendance in this Court on 8-9-1980. And the appeal was admitted and leave granted only against accused Hajari. We are, therefore, concerned with the appeal of the State only in relation to Hajari. 2. The prosecution story stated briefly is that on 23-12-1978 at around 3 PM the accused persons (eight in number) came to the residence of one Pema, accused No. 1 Hajari was armed with a gun & Ors. were armed with lathis. They demanded money from Pema, who declined to pay any money and promised payment after adjudication of litigation infra-parties. It is then alleged by the prosecution that, enraged by this refusal to pay, Hajari fired from the gun at Pema, who was hit in the stomach and died. Thereafter some of the witnesses present at the place, ran after the accused persons accosting Hajari and detained him while others succeeded in running away. After due investigation, challan was filed and the accused were charge-sheeted as above. 3. Insupport of its case, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses. Of these witnesses, PW 3 Mangiya and PW 5 Smt. Motiya are eye witnesses to the incident. Another eye witnesses to the incident Rupa has turned hostile during trial. PW 8 Raju, PW 9 Rupa and PW 10 Bahadur Singh have also been declared hostile and their testimony is, therefore, inconsequential. PW 1 Dr. S.S. Das has proved that Pema met homicidal death. PW 4 Narain proved the recovery of the gun from the accused Prithvi Singh, who is acquitted and against whose acquittal, appeal was not admitted. PW 8 Raju, PW 9 Rupa and PW 10 Bahadur Singh have also been declared hostile and their testimony is, therefore, inconsequential. PW 1 Dr. S.S. Das has proved that Pema met homicidal death. PW 4 Narain proved the recovery of the gun from the accused Prithvi Singh, who is acquitted and against whose acquittal, appeal was not admitted. It will be seen that the recovery of the gun is attributed to Prithvi Singh from his possession and not to Rupa, to whom the gun was handed over by Hajari according to the eye witness. It is worthwhile to note the statement of PW 3 Mangiya as an eye witness in this regard. *ftl le; geus gtkjh dks idMk ml le; gtkjh ds ikl cUnwd ugha FkhA gtkjh ls cUnwd Hkkxrs le; :ik us ys yh FkhA 4. PW. 5 Smt. Motiya who is wife of the deceased and an eye witness, has also stated that the gun was given by the accused Hajari to Rupa. She further states that when the gun was thrown by Hajari at Rupa, who fell on the ground and it was collected from the ground by Rupa while running away. The statements of two eye witnesses materially varies on this count also. There are various contradictions in the depositions of these two witnesses. She further states that when the gun was thrown by Hajari at Rupa, who fell on the ground and it was collected from the ground by Rupa while running away. The statements of two eye witnesses materially varies on this count also. There are various contradictions in the depositions of these two witnesses. PW 5 Smt. Motiya wife of Pema the deceased states in her examination-in-chief as under:- Þesjs ifr }kjk #i;s nsus ls euk djrs gh eqyfte gtkjh us esjs ifr ij cUnwd pyk nhA cUnwd dh xksyh esjs ifr ds isV esa yxhA blij eSa fpYyk; hA esjh fpYykgV ij esjk nsoj ekafx;k] jkft;k Hkh vkSj cgknj Bkdj vk;Aßs According to this witness, therefore, Mangia came at the scene after the gun was fired but Mangia states” bues ls eqyfte gtkjh ds ikl cUnwd Fkh rFkk ckdh vkus okyksa ds ikl ykfB;k FkhA esjs HkkbZ us iSls ekaxus ij dgk fd ,l Mh vks dksVZ esa nkok py jgk gS] og [kkfjt gks tkosxk rks [kkfjt gksrs gh iSls ns nwaxkA ml le; bl ij eqyfte gtkjh us rFkk jktuh us dgk fd ;fn isek iSls mlh le; ugh nsxk rks os mls tku ls ekj nsaxsA bl ij ejss HkkbZ us dgk fd dksVZ esa nkok py jgk gS] >xMk er djks] nkok QSly gksrs gh iSls ns nwaxkA bl ij eqyfte gtkjh us dgk fd rqEgs tku ls gh ekj Mkyrs gS] ;g dgdj eqyfte gtkjh us ejss HkkbZ isek ij cUnwd yxus ls esjk HkkbZ isek uhps xhj x;kA esjs HkkbZ isek ij cUnwd flQZ ,d ckj pyk;h x;h FkhA According to this witness, therefore, he was present right from the time when money was demanded and refused. The claim of this witness that he was present for all the period is not supported by PW 5, Smt. Motiya, who categorically states that she came after the shot was fired. It is obvious that there are material contradictions in the depositions of these two witnesses. There are more such contradictions. 5. In thiscase, the evidence of all these witnesses in relation to the presence of the other accused and their participation is rejected and conviction is claimed solely on the basis of the testimony of these two eye witnesses in whose depositions also, there are contradictions, some of which are mentioned above. There are more such contradictions. 5. In thiscase, the evidence of all these witnesses in relation to the presence of the other accused and their participation is rejected and conviction is claimed solely on the basis of the testimony of these two eye witnesses in whose depositions also, there are contradictions, some of which are mentioned above. In such circumstances, when the evidence is rejected in relation to seven other accused persons conviction by this Court may not be possible. We feel it unsafe to convict the accused on the basis of the eye witness testimony, which is contradictory in nature. If a reasonable doubt does arise in the mind of an ordinary prudent man that when these witnesses are liable to be rejected in relation to the involvement of seven other persons, it is liable to be rejected in relation to the eighth also and benefit of such doubt must go to the accused persons. 6. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.