Judgment N. N. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated 10-6-1977 passed in Sessions case No. 133/75, convicting the appellants for offence under Sections 302/149. IPC, and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. The first appellant Gurdas Singh has also been convicted for offence under Sections 307, IPC. and sentenced to 10 yearst rigorous imprisonment, whereas the second appellant Darshan Singh has been convicted for offence under Section 307/149. IPC, and sentenced to suffer 7 years rigorous imprisonment. Both these appellants have also been convinced for offence under Section 449, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. They have also been convicted for offence under Section 148. IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. Lastly, they have been convicted for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that on June 8. 1971. at about 9. 30 p. m. one Naib Singh lodged an oral First Information Report at Police Station, Gajsinghpur, stating inter alia that at about 4. 30 p. m. . Dhanna Singh (deceased ). PW-4 Ajaib Singh. Tota Singh (deceased ). PW 5 Mahendra Singh. PW 6 Mst. Murti Kaur her mother and Jagdev Singh (deceased) all residents of Lalvahi, were in the drawing room (Baithak ). ]agdev Singh (deceased) and Dhan Singh (deceased) were sleeping. Others were sitting and gossiping. His uncle Chanan Singh owned 18 Bighas of land in village Sangrana: Out of 18 Bighas of land he sold 12 Bighas to Bikar Singh, father of accused Gurdas Singh. Bikar Singh. after purchasing 12 Bighas of land, further forecibly took possession of the rest of the 6 Bighas of land of Chanan Singh. This spoiled the relationship between the two families. It is alleged that two months prior to the date of the incident, possession was taken back of the land in dispute from Bikar Singh. Thus, Bikar Singh alongwith Gurdas Singh etc. formed a group against the victim party. It is further alleged that on the date of the incident, at about 9. It is alleged that two months prior to the date of the incident, possession was taken back of the land in dispute from Bikar Singh. Thus, Bikar Singh alongwith Gurdas Singh etc. formed a group against the victim party. It is further alleged that on the date of the incident, at about 9. 30 p. m. , Gurdas Singh s/c. Bikar Singh armed with a 12 bore gun, Gurdas Singh, Sampurn Singh (appellant), armed with a knife, Baba Singh with 12 bore gun, Darshan Singh (Appellant) with 12 bore gun and Jaswant Singh with 32 bore revolver met him in their house, took position on the western gate, Gurdas Singh Sb. Bikar Singh shot fire two rounds, hitting Dhao Singh. Bawa Singh shot fire 2-3 rounds, hitting Jagdev Singh, on account of which Naib Singh and Tota Singh ran inside the room to save their lives. Gurdas Singh Sb. Bikar Singh entered in the room and caught Tota Singh and fired at him from a close range, on account of which he fell down. When Naib Singh and Ajaib Singh reached their residential house, Darshan Singh fired at them, which hit right hand of Ajaib Singh. Ajaib Singh and Naib Singh jumping wall of the house of Thakar Singh, ran away. PW 3 Thakar Singh was standing in the compound of his house. On this information, Police registered a case for offence under Sections 302, 307, 452, 147, 148 and 149, IPC. The Police reached on the spot and prepared the inquest report. The dead bodies of Dhanna Singh, Tota Singh and Jagdev Singh were sent for post mortem. After investigation, the police arrived at the conclusion that both the appellants Gurdas Singh and Darshan Singh sons. Sampurn Singh did not participate in the alleged crime. Thus, the police submitted a report against both the appellants under Section 169, Cr. P. C. , which was accepted by the learned Magistrate. The police, however, submitted charge sheet against appellants Gurdas Singh s/c. Bikar Singh, Bawa Singh s/o. Bhagwan Singh and Jawant Singh s/c. Baisakh Singh. The three accused persons were tried by the Sessions Judge. Sri Ganganagar. The learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar by his judgment dated January 11, 1973 found the charges proved against the three appellants and, accordingly, convicted them for offence under Sections 302, 302/149 and allied offences. Accused Gurdas Singh and Bawa Singh were sentenced to death. The three accused persons were tried by the Sessions Judge. Sri Ganganagar. The learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar by his judgment dated January 11, 1973 found the charges proved against the three appellants and, accordingly, convicted them for offence under Sections 302, 302/149 and allied offences. Accused Gurdas Singh and Bawa Singh were sentenced to death. Accused Jaswant Singh was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The learned Sessions Judge made a reference to the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence. The Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated September 7, 1973 modified the judgment only to the exigent of converting the death sentence of Bawa Singh to life imprisonment. The death sentence to Gurdas Singh sb. Bikar Singh was confirmed. While disposing the appeal, the Division Bench of this Court observed that the investigating agency committed illegality in recording the verdict of innocence in favour of Gurdas Singh and Darshan Singh, both sons of Sampurn Singh. The Court directed to take proper action against Gurdas Singh and Darshan Singh, sons of Sampurn Singh. The matter was carried in appeal to the Apex Court. As far as the conviction of the three accused persons is concerned, the same was upheld by the judgment of the Supreme Court dated April 15, 1975. The Court, however, committed the sentence of death of Gurdas Singh s/c Bikar Singh also to imprisonment for life. ( 3 ) IN view of the observations of the Division Bench of this Court and approved by the Supreme Court the police laid charge sheet against the appellants for offences under Sections 148, 149/302, 449, 307/149. IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. ( 4 ) THE appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 11 witnesses. The appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313. Cr. P. C. denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence. Analysing the evidence the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as noticed above. ( 5 ) WE have scanned scrutinised and evaluated the prosecution evidence and considered the rival contentions. The post-mortem of deceased Jagdev Singh. Dhanna Singh and Dhota Singh was conducted by Dr. Chandrahas Sharma. During the course of recording of the statement of PW 7 Dr. K. M. Taneja. a request was made by the learned Public Prosecutor byway of an application that since Dr. The post-mortem of deceased Jagdev Singh. Dhanna Singh and Dhota Singh was conducted by Dr. Chandrahas Sharma. During the course of recording of the statement of PW 7 Dr. K. M. Taneja. a request was made by the learned Public Prosecutor byway of an application that since Dr. Chandrahas Sharma has left India for Zambia and it is difficult to procure his presence in the Court and as such he may be allowed to get exhibited post-mortem reports written and signed by Dr. Chandrahas Sharma. This request was granted by the learned trial Judge. Accordingly postmortem reports of Jagdev Singh. Darshan Singh and Tota Singh were marked as Exs. 10, 11 and 12 respectively. He also stated that the said reports in the hands of Dr. Chandrahas Sharma and they bear his signatures. Similarly. injury report of Ajaib Singh was marked as Ex. P /13. In the cross-examination he stated that he is acquainted with the signatures of Dr. Chandrahas Sharma as he used to put his signatures on the slip therefore on this basis he could recognise the signatures of Dr. Chandrahas Sharma. As the factum of the aforesaid three deceased having met their death is not challenged by the defence and further it is exhibited that all the three persons had gun shot injuries we do not consider it necessary to refer all the three postmortem reports. ( 6 ) AT the conclusions of the recording of the statements of all the prosecution witnesses an application was filed by the learned Public Prosecutor stating that as the eyewitnesses Naib Singh and Smt. Sant Kaur have died as such so far as the statement of Smt. Sant Kaur is concerned as her statement was recorded by the Committing Court in Sessions case No. 108/72, the same may be taken on record in the instant trial. With respect to Naib Singh it was stated that his statement was recorded as PW 1 in Sessions case No. 108/72, the said statement may be taken on record in the instant trial. The said application was rejected by a detailed order dated 17-5-1979. The prosecution in order to bring home case against the appellants. examined 4 eye-witnesses namely PW-3 Thakar Singh. PW-4 Ajaib Singh. PW-5 Mahendra Singh and PW-6 Smt. Murty Kaur. Out of the four eye witnesses. The said application was rejected by a detailed order dated 17-5-1979. The prosecution in order to bring home case against the appellants. examined 4 eye-witnesses namely PW-3 Thakar Singh. PW-4 Ajaib Singh. PW-5 Mahendra Singh and PW-6 Smt. Murty Kaur. Out of the four eye witnesses. except PW 4 Ajaib Singh all the three witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and. as such they have been declared hostile. Thus the only evidence against the appellant is that of PW 4 Ajaib Singh. ( 7 ) THUS the question arises for consideration is as to whether the statement of PW 4 Ajaib Singh is of sterling worth on the basis of which the conviction of the appellants recorded by the trial Court can be upheld. PW 4 Ajaib Singh has stated that on the date Of the incident, at about 4 or 4. 15 P. M. , he was sitting at his residence alongwith Dhanna Singh, Naib Singh, Jagdev Singh, Tota Singh and Mahendra Singh. His sister Murty Kaur was washing the clothes outside the Baithak. His mother Sant Kaur was also sitting near by. Atthat time, Gurdas Singh S/o. Bikar Singh, Gurdas Singh S/o. Sampurn Singh, Darshan Singh, Bawa Singh and Jaswant Singh all the five accused persons arrived. Bawa Singh arrived with one barrel gun, Gurdas Singh S/c. Bikar Singh with double barrel 12 bore gun, Darshan Singh with double barrel 12 bore gun, Gurdas Singh s/c Sampurn Singh with rifle and Jaswant Singh with revolver. Gurdas Singh s/o Bikar Singh opened two rounds of fire on Dhanna Singh. Thereafter, Bawa Singh fired on Jagdev Singh. Having sustained fire armed injuries, Jagdev Singh ran towards the residential Kotha. Darshan Singh S/o. Sampurn Singh fired at him, when he looked back, he sustained tire injuries on the left hand. Thereafter, he alongwith Naib Singh jumped the wall of the house of Thakar Singh. He witnessed the incident hiding himself behind the wall. He further stated that Tota Singh went in-side the residential Kotha and closed the door, upon which Gurdas Singh fired at the gate. He also asked him that he should come out, he will not be killed, on which Tota Singh opened the gate. Gurdas Singh S/o Bikar Singh and Darshan Singh caught-hold Tota Singh. Darshan Singh pushed him. Gurdas Singh S/o Bikar Singh and Darshan Singh S/o Sampurn Singh opened fire at him. He also asked him that he should come out, he will not be killed, on which Tota Singh opened the gate. Gurdas Singh S/o Bikar Singh and Darshan Singh caught-hold Tota Singh. Darshan Singh pushed him. Gurdas Singh S/o Bikar Singh and Darshan Singh S/o Sampurn Singh opened fire at him. Thereafter, Jaswant Singh fired from the western gate. After some time his younger brother Mahendra Singh and sister Murty Kaur also arrived. Thereafter, he went to the house of Kaushal Singh, in the cross-examination, he admitted that while witnessing the incident, he could not see Gurdas Singh S/o Sampurn Singh. Gurdas Singh S/o Sampurn Singh Dikhai Nahi De Rahaa Tha. He also admitted that while he was in the kitchen, he heard the voice of Gurdas Singh S/o. Bikar Singh, Jaswant Singh, and Bawa Singh, but he did not hear the voice of both the accused, i. e. , Gurdas Singh. S/o Sampurn Singh and Darshan Singh S/o. Sampurn Singh. He also admitted that he was not having any enmity with Darshan Singh and Gurnam Singh. He also admitted that his statement was recorded by the police after 25-26 days. On further cross-examination, he was confronted with his earlier statements recorded in the Sessions case trial No. 108/72. In his earlier statement, he stated that Dhanna Singh, Jagdev Singh, Naib Singh, Tota Singh, Mahendra Singh, his sister and mother were sitting in the Baithak. However, in the instant trial, he stated that his sister was not in the Baithak, but she was washing clothes outside the Baithak. He simply stated that the statement recorded in the instant trial is correct. In his earlier statement, he stated that on the third cot, he alongwith Mahendra Singh and Naib Singh were sitting, but in the instant trial, he stated that he did not occupy the cot. He was also confronted with his earlier statement that his mother and sister were sitting on the cot, but in the instant trial, he has stated that his sister was washing the clothes. There has been lengthy cross-examination. He has been confronted on a number of point of vital aspect of the case and he has not been able to give a proper explanation for variance in the two statements. There are apparent improvements and omissions in his statement. His statement has also been recorded after 25 to 26 days of the incident. There has been lengthy cross-examination. He has been confronted on a number of point of vital aspect of the case and he has not been able to give a proper explanation for variance in the two statements. There are apparent improvements and omissions in his statement. His statement has also been recorded after 25 to 26 days of the incident. In view of this, he cannot be said to be a witness of sterling worth. In our opinion, it is not safe to uphold the conviction of the appellants solely on the testimony of PW 4 Ajaib Singh. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Gangartagar dated 10-6-1977 is quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Both the appellants, namely, Gurdas Singh and Darshan Singh, sons of Sampuran Singh, are on bail. Their, bail bonds stand discharged. Appeal allowed. .