Judgment N. N. MATHUR. J. ( 1 ) - This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22-12-1980 convicting the appellants Karnail Singh Sb Nand Singh, Saheb Singh, Nikshatra Singh, Banta Singh, Sikattar Singh all sons of Karnail Singh, Bhajan Singh, Bachhan Singh, Sikttar Singh, Bhal Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Darbara Singh of offence under Sections 302/149 I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. They have also been convicted for the allied offence as under Sections 307/149, 326/l49and 148 I. P. C. During he pendency of the appeal, the appellants Bhal Singh Mukhtiar Singh and Darbara Singh died. The said fact has been noticed in the order sheet dated 21st January, 1997. Thus, the appeal filed by the said three appellants stands abated. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that P. W. /1 Jagir Singh lodged the F. I. R. at the Police Station Taiwara Jheel on 4-2-1977 stating inter alia that on 3-2-1977 his nephew alongwith his niece Prakash Kaur had gone to Hanumangarh to meet Milkha Singh who was lodged in sub jail. Both of them returned to their village Talwara Jheel by train. They got down at about 8. 00 p. m. Accused Karnail Singh and his son also travelled with them in the same train. They were returning from Hanumangarh after attending the court. As soon as they landed on the railway station, Lakha Singh was surrounded by them in order to assault him. Prakash Kaur immediately informed to PW /6 Sukha Singh at his residence. In turn, Sukha Singh went to the house of PW/ 1 Jagir Singh where, alongwith Jagir Singh, deceased Gehna Singh, PW /3 Samunda Singh, PW /2 Tilok Singh were talking to Barn Singh with respect to the sale of a land. Sukha Singh told him about the surrounding of Lakha Singh by the accused persons at the railway station in order to assault him. All the 5 persons proceeded towards the house of Lakha Singh. In the way, near the place known as Kaniram ke pecht all the accused persons alongwith Shingra Singh met. They challenged and threatened to kill them. The accused Nichatra Singh was armed with a rifle and Karnail Singh with 12 bore gun. All the other accused persons were carrying weapons like gandasa, barcha and lathis with them. In the way, near the place known as Kaniram ke pecht all the accused persons alongwith Shingra Singh met. They challenged and threatened to kill them. The accused Nichatra Singh was armed with a rifle and Karnail Singh with 12 bore gun. All the other accused persons were carrying weapons like gandasa, barcha and lathis with them. The accused Mukhtiar Singh gave a barcha blow on the chest of Gahna Singh so as Banta Singh also gave a barcha blow on account of which. Gahna Singh fell down. Thereafter Darbara Singh. Banta Singh. Mukhtiar Singh and Nichtra Singh also thrashed Gahna Singh by different weapons. At that time Sikttar Singh shot two fire from the rifle. PW /2 Tilok Singh tried to escape on which. Kamail Singh from his 12 bore gun fired, which hit on his back on account of which he fell down. The other accused persons Sahab Singh. Bahal Singh and Shingra Singh assaulted him by lathis, gandasis and barchis. PW. 3 Samund Singh was surrounded by Bachhan Singh and was given beatings by barchis, gandasis and lathis. PW /5 Barkha Singh intervened and advised the accused persons not to assault them on which. Sikttar Singh assaulted him. Gahna Singh died on the spot. The incident was witnessed by PW /1 Jagir Singh and PW /6 Sukha Singh having concealed themselves behind the wall of food-grain shop. After the accused persons left the spot. PW 11 Jagtr Singh. PW/6 Sukha Singh, took the injured PW. 12 Tilok Singh and PW 13 Samunda Singh to the house of Samunda Singh leaving Sukha Singh near the dead body of Gahna Singh. Jagir Singh took all the three injured persons to the police station at Talwara Jheel. The oral F. I. R. was lodged before PW /11 Richpal Singh, In-charge Police Station Talwara Jheel. The police registered the case and proceeded with the investigation. The police prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body of Gahna Singh for post-mortem. After usual investigation police laid chargesheet against all the 11 accused persons and Shingra Singh who died during the investigation of offence under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 148, 147 and 149 I. P. C. and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. ( 3 ) THE accused persons denied the charges levelled against them and claimed trial. After usual investigation police laid chargesheet against all the 11 accused persons and Shingra Singh who died during the investigation of offence under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 148, 147 and 149 I. P. C. and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. ( 3 ) THE accused persons denied the charges levelled against them and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 11 witnesses and produced certain documents. In statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. all the accused persons denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them. The Appellant Sikttar Singh stated that on the day of the incident when he alongwith Darbara Singh. Shingara Singh. Bhajan Singh etc. had returned from Hanumangarh after attending the court as soon as they landed on the railway station Talwara Jheel. Barkha Singh. Jagir Singh. Lakha Singh. Sukha Singh etc. armed with gandasi, lathis and barchis attacked and assaulted them. He somehow managed to reach at the house and informed about the incident. The accused Mukhtiar Singh and Bachhan Singh have stated that when Sikttar Singh informed about the incident at the railway station. they armed with gandasis and lathis proceeded towards the railway station. As soon as they reached near the school. they were informed that Darbara Singh and Shingara Singh have been taken to the house in injured condition when they were returning from the railway station near food-grain mandi, deceased Gahna Singh. PW 12 Tilok Singh and PW 3 Samunda Singh met them. They started abusing them. They also assaulted them by barchis and gandasis. Mukhtiar Singh sustained serious injuries in the stomach on account of which his intestine came out. The accused persons have also given details with respect to the arms carried by the prosecution witnesses and the part played by them. They also stated that the F. I. R. of the incident was also lodged at the police station Talwara Jheel. They have proved the said F. I. R. Ex. D/15. Analysing the evidence the learned Judge found the prosecution case proved and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants as noticed above. ( 4 ) IT is contended by Mr. M. L. Garg. learned counsel appearing for the appellants that all the four alleged eye witnesses are highly interested and enimical witness. The trial court without scrutinising their evidence in right perspective has relied on them. ( 4 ) IT is contended by Mr. M. L. Garg. learned counsel appearing for the appellants that all the four alleged eye witnesses are highly interested and enimical witness. The trial court without scrutinising their evidence in right perspective has relied on them. It is also submitted that according to the prosecution the first incident took place at the railway station but both the witnesses of the incident namely Prakash Kaur and Lakha Singh have not been produced. This shows that the genesis of the incident has been suppressed by the prosecution. It is also submitted that the prosecution has not explained the injuries on the body of the accused persons. Injuries on the body of the accused persons have not been explained. It is also submitted that defence of the appellants has not been considered in right perspective, which is more probable in the facts of the case. In alternate it is submitted that it is the case of free fight as such it is only the individual appellant for his act who can be held responsible. It is pointed out that the fatal injury has been scribed to Mukhtiar Singh. who has died during the pendency of the case. The offence against rest of the accused persons does not travel beyond Sections 326/149 I. P. C. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial court. ( 5 ) WE have scaned, scrutinized and evaluated the prosecution evidence carefully and considered the rival contentions. ( 6 ) PW /4 Dr. S. P. Jakhar has stated that he conducted the postmortem of deceased Gahna Singh and found the following injuries on his person:1 Incised wound (oblique) on Rtgluteal region x 1/2 x lh/2t1 in size. 5 from ant. sup. iliac spine (Rt) and 5h/2ti below from top of iliac crest; 2. Incised wound (oblique) on Post. asp. of Rt. shoulder 1 TTX x 1/3 in size just above the post axillary fold; 3. Lacerated wound on Rt. parietal region of scalp itt x x bone deep. 4 1/2 from Rt. eyebrow. ih/2tt Lat. To central line of scalp (oblique); 4. Lacerated wound on Lt. parietal region of scalp 2 x x bone deep in size. 31/2t1 from eyebrow and 1/2tt Latt to central line of scalp (oblique); 5. Lacerated wound on Rt. parietal region of scalp itt x x bone deep. 4 1/2 from Rt. eyebrow. ih/2tt Lat. To central line of scalp (oblique); 4. Lacerated wound on Lt. parietal region of scalp 2 x x bone deep in size. 31/2t1 from eyebrow and 1/2tt Latt to central line of scalp (oblique); 5. Lacerated wound on occipital protrubence of scalp 2) x TT x 1/3t1 in size (oblique); 6. Lacerated wound on Lt. parietal region of scalp 1 x 1/4tt x 1/4 in size. 41/2 from Lt. eyebrow and 4tt from central line of scalp (oblique); 7. Incised wound (Vert.) on medial side of Lt. eye 2 x 1/8 x TT in size, injurying the Lt. eye ball near medial cartlius of eye; 8. Punctured wound (Incised) on Rt. side of front of chest itt medial and below to Rt. mammary gland and 2 1/2 Lat. to mid sternal line. 2 x 1/2tt x cutting the 7th Rt. rib at 1tt Lat to its sternal joint, puncturing the pleurae, puncturing the middle lobe of Rt. lung at its lower part, puncturing the diaphragm and penetrating the Rt. lobe of lever. (1t x 1/8 x ih/4tt in size) from ant. side. itt above the inferior border of lever; 9. Punctured wound on Rt. side of chest 4 below Rt. mammary gland and 4tt Lat to mid sternal line, 13/4tt x 1/2tt x puncturing the pleurae and diaphragm laterally between the space between 10th and 11th Rt. rib and penetrating the. Rt. lobe of lever at Lat side T1 x 1/8 x 1/2t1 in size, 1/2tt above the inferior border. He has proved post-mortem report Ex. P/7. He found all the injuries ante mortem in nature. In his opinion the effect of the injuries was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In his opinion, the cause of death was shock and syncope as a result of haemohrrage and injuries to vital organs. ( 7 ) HE also stated that on the same day he examined PW/5 Barkha Singh and found the following injuries on his person:1. Incised wound (oblique) 2 x 1/2 x 1/3 on dorsum of Rt. hand just above the 1st metacarpo phalangeal joint of Rt. thumb; 2. Incised wound (oblique) 11/2 x x on dorsal, lateral aspect of Rt, index finger 1st pha lynx. He has proved injury report Ex. P/4. Incised wound (oblique) 2 x 1/2 x 1/3 on dorsum of Rt. hand just above the 1st metacarpo phalangeal joint of Rt. thumb; 2. Incised wound (oblique) 11/2 x x on dorsal, lateral aspect of Rt, index finger 1st pha lynx. He has proved injury report Ex. P/4. In his opinion both the injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon. On the same day he also examined PW. 2 Tilok Singh and found the following injuries: Til Lacerated wound 1/2 x TI x 1/3t1 Lat. Post. aspect of middle 1/3 part of Lt. thigh; 2. Abrasion (Two in No.) 1/2t1 x 1/2t1 and T1 x 1/2t1 on Rt. Knee joint; 3. Incised wound (oblique above downward) 2ti x 1/2 x 1/3t1, post aspect of Lt. shoulder just above the axillary fold; 4. Lacerated wound 4t1 x 1/2t1 x. bone deep, Lt. parietal region of scalp 4t1 from Lt. ear and 1t1 from mid line of scalp; 5. Lacerated wound (oblique) 1/2t1 x 1/8 x 1/8 on the Rt. hypochondrium region Lat to mid abd. line; 6. Lacerated wound (Trans.) 2 x x sub cut, tissue deep, on the back of lumbar spine region in middle; 7. Lacerated wound (oblique) x 1/3 x sub cut, tissue deep, on Lt. side of back 31/2 Lat to mid. sp. line and just below info angle of scapula; 8. Irregular wound with ragged margins 3 x 11/4 x muscle deep on the Rt. side of back in Lumbar region 1 Lat to mid spi. line and 6 below inferior angle of scapula; 9. 37 circular wounds of size 1/8 x 1/8 x sub cut tissue deep 4 x 8 on the back in lumbar region upto 2 Lat. to mid. spi. line on the left side and upto 6 Lat to mid. spi. line on the Rt. side. He has proved injury report Ex. P/s. In his opinion injury Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were caused by blunt object and injury No. 3 by sharp edged weapon. He also stated that on radiological examination he found that while injury Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 were simple in nature, injury Nos. 3 and 4 were grievous in nature. He also stated that injury Nos. 8 and 9 were caused by fire arm. He also stated that on radiological examination he found that while injury Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 were simple in nature, injury Nos. 3 and 4 were grievous in nature. He also stated that injury Nos. 8 and 9 were caused by fire arm. ( 8 ) ON the same day, he also examined P. W/3 Samunda Singh and found the following injuries. 1. Incised wound (Vert.) 1 x x on Rt. side of front of chest, I Lat. to mid sternum line and 3 from Rt. mammary gland on 4th inter-costal space; 2. A diffuse painful swelling of lower 1/2 of Rt. leg and Rt. foot ankle joint; 3. Bruise 2 x 1 on front of middle 1/3 part of left forearm 5 1/2 from wrist joint; 4. Bruise 3 x on Lt. side of Back sub scapular region; 5. Bruise 2 x 1 on Lt. scapular region. He has proved injury report Ex. p /6. He found injury No. 1 caused by blunt object. Injuries No. 3, 4 and 5 were caused by sharp edged weapon. On radiological examination, he found that the injury No. 1 was grievous in nature. ( 9 ) IN the cross examination he admitted that the accused Darbara Singh was also examined by him on the same day and he found the following injuries on his person:1. Lacerated wound 1 x 1/3 x 1/4 on Lt. parietal region of scalp from Lt. eye brow. He admitted that he had prepared injury report Ex. D/ll and Ex. D/11a. He also admitted that he examined Sangara Singh and found following injuries on his person: 1 Lacerated wound (oblique) 2 x x bone deep on Rt. side of fronto parietal region of scalp 3 from Rt. eye brow; 2. Lacerated wound (oblique) itt x x on Lt. side of occipital region of scalp 2 from occipital protrubence; 3. Lacerated wound (oblique) 21/2 x 1/2tt x 1/3 on Lt. parieto occipital region of scalp 1/2 from occipital protrubence; 4. Lacerated wound (oblique) x 1/3 x on occipital region of scalp on occipital protru ben ce; 5. A diffuse painful swelling on Lt. parietal region of scalp 2 from Lt. eye brow and 31/2 from central line of scalp; 6. A diffuse swelling on middle 1/3 part of Rt. forearm; 7. Bruise (oblique) 4 x 1 on Rt. scapular region; 8. A diffuse painful swelling on Lt. parietal region of scalp 2 from Lt. eye brow and 31/2 from central line of scalp; 6. A diffuse swelling on middle 1/3 part of Rt. forearm; 7. Bruise (oblique) 4 x 1 on Rt. scapular region; 8. Bruise (oblique) 21/2 x itt on Rt. Infra scapular region of back; 9. Bruise (oblique) 3tt x ITT on Lt. scapular region of back; 10. Bruise (oblique) 2t1 x itt on Lt. infra scapular region of back. He has admitted injury report Ex. D12 and D12a. He has stated that all the injuries were caused by blunt object. On, radiological examination, he found that injury Nos. 7 to 10 were simple in nature. ( 10 ) HE also admitted that he examined Sakktar Singh and found following injuries on his person:til Lacerated wound (oblique) 21/2tt x x on Rt. parietal region of scalp 4 1/2tt from eyebrow 3 from central line of scalp; 2. Lacerated wound (oblique) 1tt x 1/8tt x 1/8 on Rt. parietal region of scalp itt post to Inj. No. 1; 3. Lacerated wound ll/2tix 1/3 x 1/4 on Left parietal region of scalp 6 from Lt. eyebrow and 4 from central line of scalp; 4. Bruise with diffuse swelling (oblique) 5 x on Post. asp. of Rt. forearm 2 from elbow joint; 5. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 on ant. medial asp. of Rt. upper arm 2 from elbow joint; 6. A diffuse swelling on Dorsum of Rt. hand; 7. Incised wound with diffuse swelling on Dorsum of Lt. hand just above the thumb, index finger and middle finger, 1 x x 1/1oti on Dorsum of Lt. hand between thumb and index finger; 8. Abrasion x 1/2 on palmer aspect of Lt. middle finger on 2nd phalynx. He has admitted injury report Ex. D/13 and D/13a. He stated that except injury No. 7, all the injuries were of blunt in nature. ( 11 ) HE also stated that he examined Mukhtiar Singh and found the following injuries: Til Incised wound 1 x x deep to abd. cavity on front of abd. 1/3 Rt. Lat. to mid line and 1 from umbilicus. He admitted the injury report Ex. D/14 and 14a. He found the injuries grievous in nature. ( 12 ) PW /1 Jagir Singh has stated that on the date of incident at about 8 or 8. cavity on front of abd. 1/3 Rt. Lat. to mid line and 1 from umbilicus. He admitted the injury report Ex. D/14 and 14a. He found the injuries grievous in nature. ( 12 ) PW /1 Jagir Singh has stated that on the date of incident at about 8 or 8. 30 p. m. (sic) PW /3 Samunda Singh and PW /2 Tilok Singh. They were talking to Barn Singh with respect to the land purchased by the deceased Gahna Singh. At that time, PW /6 Sukha arrived and informed about Lakha Singh being surrounded and assaulted by the accused persons at the railway station. On hearing this news, he alongwith other persons i. e. deceased Gahna Singh, PW /2 Tilok Singh and PW /3 Samunda Singh proceeded towards house of Samunda Singh. On the way near the pach of Kaniramt the accused persons met them. They challenged and threatened to kill them. He also stated that the accused Sakktar Singh was armed with rifle and Karnail Singh with 12 bore gun. Rest of the accused persons were armed with barchis, gandasis and lathis. He also stated that Mukhtiar Singh gave a barchi blow on the chest of Gahna Singh. Thereafter, Banta Singh gave a blow on the chest of Gahna Singh, on account of which, he fell down. The other accused persons namely: Darbara Singh, Banta Singh and Nichtra Singh thrashed Gahna Singh by lathis, gandasis and barchis. He also stated that the accused Sikattar Singh shot fire from the rifle. At that time, PW. 2 Tilok Singh tried to escape, on which, Karnail Singh fired by 12 bore gun which hit on back of Tilok Singh, on account of which, he fell down. All the accused persons Saheb Singh, Bhal Singh and Shingara Singh thrashed him by lathis, gandasis and barchis. At that time, the accused Bhajan Singh, Bachhan Singh. Sikttar Singh surrounded PW /3 Samunda Singh and assaulted him by barchis. gadasis and lathis. PW /5 Barkha Singh intervened. On which. Sikattar Singh inflicted injury by gandasi on his hand. He also stated that PW /6 Sukha Singh witnessed the incident concealing himself behind the wall of food-grain shop Jagir Singh also stated that he had witnessed the incident from the same place. He further stated that after the accused persons have left the place of incident he went near the body of Gahna Singh. He also stated that PW /6 Sukha Singh witnessed the incident concealing himself behind the wall of food-grain shop Jagir Singh also stated that he had witnessed the incident from the same place. He further stated that after the accused persons have left the place of incident he went near the body of Gahna Singh. He took Tilok Singh. Samunda Singh and Barkha Singh to the house of Samunda Singh. After arranging a jeep he took them to the police station Tilwara Jheel. F. I. R. Ex. P/i was registered. He has also stated that on the earlier occasion. Sikttar Singh had fired shot at Milkha Singh. He also stated that Gahna Singh was also assaulted by Sikttar Singh. They were convicted and sentenced by the court. ( 13 ) PW /2 Tilok Singh has also given the statement almost in the line of PW /1 Jagir Singh. PW /3 Samunda Singh has stated that when he was sitting at the residence of PW /1 Jagir Singh. PW /6 Sukha Singh informed that Lakha Singh has been assaulted by the accused persons at the railway station. He has given narration of the incident exactly as has been given by PW. 1 Jagir Singh and PW/2 Tilok Singh. PW/6 Sukha Singh has also corroborated the statement of PW /2 Tilok Singh and PW /3 Sikttar Singh. ( 14 ) IT is not in dispute that PW / 1 Jagir Singh and PW /3 Samunda Singh are the real brothers of deceased Gahna Singh. PW/2 Tilok Singh is the real cousin brother of the deceased. PW /5 Bakha Singh and PW /6 Sukha Singh are the real cousin brothers of deceased Gahna Singh. Thus they are highly interested witnesses. Thus their evidence is required to be scrutinized with great care. All the witnesses have graphic infliction of the assault with regard to the order the manner and the parts of the body with absolute consistency, which gives an impression that they have given only one set of the facts. They have even denied if the injuries were sustained by the accused persons in the same incident. According to the prosecution the first incident took place at the railway station. But both the witnesses of the alleged incident namely Prakash Kaur and Lakha Singh have not been examined. They have even denied if the injuries were sustained by the accused persons in the same incident. According to the prosecution the first incident took place at the railway station. But both the witnesses of the alleged incident namely Prakash Kaur and Lakha Singh have not been examined. According to PW /1 Jagir Singh he was informed by Prakash Kaur that Lakha Singh has been surrounded by the accused persons with a view to assault him. There is nothing on record to show that Lakha Singh was being assaulted. The medical evidence referred to above shows that three accused persons have sustained injuries. Out of 23 injuries 4 injuries are of grievous nature. These injuries have not been explained by the prosecution. These injuries are not minor and superficial in nature. The accused persons have come out with the categorical case that on their return from Hanumangarh as soon as they got down at the railway station at Talwara Jheel. Barkha Singh. Jagir Singh. Lakha Singh and Sukha Singh attacked on them and caused injuries by gandasis and lathis. On receiving this information Jagir Singh etc. armed with gandasis and lathis etc. proceeded towards the railway station. At railway station they were told that Darbara Singh and Shingara Singh have left for the house. While they were returning from the railway station near the food-grain market (ANAZ MANDI ) deceased Gahna Singh. PW /2 Tilok Singh and PW /3 Samunda Singh met. They hurled abuses on them. They also assaulted them by gandasis and barchis. Mukhtiar Singh sustained injuries on the stomach on account of which, his intestine came out. The defence version finds corroboration from the medical evidence referred to above. The prosecution witnesses claimed innocent even to the extent that they were not armed with any weapon. Apparently, they are making a false statement. If they were totally unarmed there was not question of any injury on the body of the accused persons. The prosecution evidence is not so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested so probable, consistent and creditworthy that it may out weight the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused. The trial court has committed error in ignoring the non-explanation of the serious injuries on the persons of the appellants. The trial court has committed error in ignoring the non-explanation of the serious injuries on the persons of the appellants. ( 15 ) THUS, prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence by not producing Prakash Kaur and Lakha Singh. The fact that the prosecution witnesses have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused persons, thereby they are lying on the important material point the fact that the defence version is probable as the injuries have not been explained on the persons of the accused we are clearly of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond the reasonable doubt. ( 16 ) CONSEQUENTLY this appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Addi. Sessions Judge No. 1 Hanumangarh dated 22-12-1980 is quashed and set aside. The accused appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged. Appeal allowed.