IMTIYAZ MURTAZA, J. The above eight appeals have been preferred by 14 appellants against the judgment and order dated 20- 1-2000 passed by Sri Naresh Singh, II Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Session Trial No. 332 of 1995 convicting the appellants Rajeshwar, Ram Veer, Raj Veer, Om Veer, Ram Sewak, Daya Shankar, Ram Prakash alias Lojhari and Radhey under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and sentencing each of them to death and fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment of two years each. The appellants Pati Ram alias Patanga, Rajesh alias Tillu, Ved Ram, Ram Sanehi, Ram Baran and Ramuwa were convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment of two years each. All the appellants were further convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and under Section 436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC they were sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. Since all these appeals arise out of the same judgment hence these are taken up together for decision by a common judgment. 3. The prosecution story as revealed from the First Information Report Ex. Ka-1 was that there was enmity of complainant on one hand with Harijans and Brahmins of the village on the other hand. If was further mentioned that litigations were going on between them. It was alleged that on account of previous enmities on 7-12-1994 at about 6. 00 a. m. all the above mentioned accused alongwith four-five unknown persons, whom the complainant could recognize, arrived armed with country made rifles, guns and pistols in the Mohalla of Braj Pal Singh, complainant, P. W. 1 and surrounded them. They also started firing. It was alleged that miscreants had set fire on the Chappar of Ram Veer Garheriya, Nek Ram Garheriya, Awadhesh Nai and also on the Chappar of complainant and Ganga Deen Telis house was also set on fire. They also started firing. It was alleged that miscreants had set fire on the Chappar of Ram Veer Garheriya, Nek Ram Garheriya, Awadhesh Nai and also on the Chappar of complainant and Ganga Deen Telis house was also set on fire. It is further alleged that when they ran to save their lives the miscreants caught hold of Manjoo alias Manoj S/o Brij Pal Singh, P. W. 1 and Ram Chandra Nai and started assaulting them with lathi. Manjoo alias Manoj was shot dead near the house of Awadhesh and accused threw him in the fire. It was further alleged that complainants brother Amar Singh ran inside the Marhaiya of Pachai and Sadhu, when he was shot dead. Ram Chandra Nai was taken to southern side of the village and he was shot dead there. Bhoorey P. W. 5 had received fire-arm injuries due to indiscriminate firing. The children and the ladies were threatened. The burning of houses resulted in huge losses. The occurrence was witnessed by Jagbir, P. W. 3 s/o Amar Singh, Ashok, P. W. 2 s/o Ram Chandra, Smt. Mahadevi wife of late Ram Chandra, Dinesh s/o late Ram Chandra Nai, Nek Ram, Smt. Katori wife of Todi, Gangadeen, his wife Smt. Chhoti Bitiya and daughter Malti. Raja Ram Nai, Udai Veer Singhs wife (complainants sister-in-law) who is wife of Amar Singh and Siya Ram Teli and also several women and children of the village. 4. The oral report of the above mentioned occurrence was lodged by the complainant Braj Pal Singh, P. W. 1 at Police Station Kayam Ganj, District Farrukhabad. The report was registered on 7-12-1994 at 10. 55 a. m. and entered in the General Diary Ext. Ka-2 by Trilok Nath Dubey, Head Moharrir, P. W. 6. In this occurrence three persons namely Amar Singh, Manjoo Singh and Ram Chandra lost their lives. The post-mortem was conducted by Dr. R. Singh, P. W. 7 who had found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead-body of Amar Singh:- (1) Fire-arm wound of entry 8 x 5 cm x cavity deep left side of ear & mastoid region margins inverted, lacerated, ecchymased, blackish cut around margin on dissection left masstoid. Occipital left side of mandible and maxila fractures sic brain lacerated haematoma cut. (2) Fire-arm wound of gutter shape over dorso medial aspect of left wrist margins invested lacerated, ecchymased on dorsally ecchymased everted ventrally. Occipital left side of mandible and maxila fractures sic brain lacerated haematoma cut. (2) Fire-arm wound of gutter shape over dorso medial aspect of left wrist margins invested lacerated, ecchymased on dorsally ecchymased everted ventrally. Underlying with fractured. (3) Fire-arm wound of entry 25 cm x 1 cm x abd cavity deep left lateral side of abd, margins inverted lacerated, ecchymased blackening around wound. On dissection peritoneum lacerated with laceration of left kidney & both intestine at places cavity, full of blood fetal matter. 5. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead-body of Manjoo Singh:- (1) Fire-arm wound of entry 2. 5 x 2 cm x through & through on left side of head temporal region 4 cm. above & in front of left ear, margins inverted and charred, underlying bone margins & brain lacerated. Communicating wound of exit 5 x 3. 5 cm. on right side head just above P. T. ear, Margins everted & charred. (2) Gun shot wound of entry 3 x 2. 5 cm x chest cavity deep on right nipple of chest 8 cm. lacerated nipple at about 12 Oclock. Margins inverted 7 charred. On dissection fractured 3rd rib, right lung lacerated, chest cavity full of blood. 6. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead-body of Ram Chandra:- (1) Fire-arm wound of entry 9 x 5 cm x chest cavity deep on front of left side of chest involving shoulder margins inverted, lacerated & ecchymased blackening around the margins. (2) Fire-arm wound of entry 3 x 3 cm x abd cavity deep just below costal margins, margins inverted. Lacerated ecchymased, blackening around marigns. On dissection of injury (1) scapula left & left humorous fractured left lung pleura lacerated. Chest cavity full of blood. On dissection of injury 2 both intestine, liver kidney left lacerated. 7. Apart from the above mentioned three deceased persons one Bhoorey was said to have received injuries and he was medically examined by Dr. R. K. Porwal, P. W. 8 on 7-12-1994 at 10. 40 p. m. and following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person:- (1) Lacerated wound. 2 cm x. 2 cm. present on front of left shoulder. Centre of wound is blackish in colour. Redness is present in area of 1 cm. x 1 cm. around wound. (2) Lacerated wound. 2 cm x. 2 cm. present in left iliac fossa, 9 cm umbilicus. 2 cm x. 2 cm. present on front of left shoulder. Centre of wound is blackish in colour. Redness is present in area of 1 cm. x 1 cm. around wound. (2) Lacerated wound. 2 cm x. 2 cm. present in left iliac fossa, 9 cm umbilicus. Wound is blackish in colour. Redness is present in area of 1 cm. x cm. around wound. (3) Two lacerated wound measuring. 2 x. 2 cm. each in right iliac fossa. 9 cm. from umbilicus. Wound is blackish in colour. Redness is present in area of 1 cm. x 1 cm. around wound. (4) Lacerated wound measuring. 2 cm. x. 2 cm. present in medial aspect of thigh 22 cm. above knee. Wound is blackish in colour. Redness is present around wound. (5) Lacerated wound measuring. 2 cm. x. 2 cm. present in medial aspect of left thigh, 2 cm. above knee. Wound is blackish in colour. (6) Lacerated wound. 2 x. 2 cm. on medial aspect of right knee. Blackish in colour. (7) Lacerated wound. 2 cm. x. 2 cm. medical aspect of right thigh, 6 cm. above knee. (8) Abrasion 1 cm. x. 2 cm an outer aspect of right thigh. 8. The prosecution in support of its case had examined in all 10 witnesses. Braj Pal Singh, P. W. 1 Ashok Kumar, P. W. 2, Jagbir, P. W. 3, Awadhesh, P. W. 4 and Bhoorey, P. W. 5 are eye-witnesses. Trilok Nath Dubey (P. W. 6) Head Moharrir posted at police station Kayamganj had prepared the chick report Ext. Ka- 1 in the G. D. No. 24 dated 7-12-1994 at 10. 55 a. m. He had also proved G. D. Ext. Ka-2. Dr. R. Singh (P. W. 7) has conducted the post-mortem of the deceased Amar Singh Singh (Ext. Ka-3), Manju Singh (Ext. Ka-4) and Ram Chandra (Ext. Ka-5 ). He had also stated that he had found fire-arms injuries on the dead-body and he had not found any injury of blunt object like Lathi and Danda. Dr. R. K. Porwal (P. W. 8) had medically examined the injured Bhurey and his medical report is Ext. Ka-6. 9. Lal Singh Chandel (P. W. 9) reached at the place of occurrence after registration of the case alongwith Raja Ram Nagar and other police officers. On the direction of Investigating Officer he had prepared the inquest report of Amar Singh (Ext. Ka-6. 9. Lal Singh Chandel (P. W. 9) reached at the place of occurrence after registration of the case alongwith Raja Ram Nagar and other police officers. On the direction of Investigating Officer he had prepared the inquest report of Amar Singh (Ext. Ka-7), Photo Lash, Chalan Lash and two letters for C. M. O. which are Exts. Ka-8 to Ka-11. He had sealed the dead-body of Amar Singh and then prepared inquest report of deceases Manju Singh (Ext. Ka-12) and also prepared Photo Lash and Chalan Lash and two letters for C. M. O. which are Exts. Ka-13 to Ka-16. Then he had prepared the inquest report of deceased Ram Chandra (Ext. Ka-17) and prepared Photo Lash, Chalan Lash and two letter for C. M. O. which are Ext. Ka- 18 to Ka-21. He handed over the sealed dead bodies for post-mortem examination to the constables. 10. P. W. 10 Raja Ram Nagar, Station House Officer is the Investigating Officer of the case. The First Information Report was registered in his presence. He had recorded the statement of complainant. Inquest report of the dead-bodies were prepared by S. S. I. Chandel on his direction. He had collected plain and blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and prepared fard. He had recorded the statement of inquest witnesses and eye-witnesses Smt. Rama wife of Amar Singh. On 8-12-1994 he had recorded the statement of witnesses namely Ashok, Smt. Mahadevi, Smt. Chhoti Bitiya, Sri Dinesh, Sri Yaduvir, Smt. Rukmani, Sri Gangadeen, Km. Malti, Sri Awadhesh, Sri Siya Ram, Smt. Katori and Sri Ramveer. He had inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ka-26. He had also recorded the statement of witness Ram Veer on 9-12-1994. He had recorded the statement of witness Suraj Pal and Ram Singh. On 23-12-1994 accused Ram Prakash alias Lojhri had surrendered in Court and on 4-1-95 he had taken his police remand and he had confessed and on his pointing out one SBBL gun was recovered which was used in the crime. On 8-1-1995 he had recorded the statement of injured Bhurey. On 19-1-1995 he had submitted charge-sheet. 11. The accused have denied the prosecution case and have examined D. W. 1, Ram Autar Incharge DCR to prove that in the wireless message sent with regard to the occurrence it was mentioned that some miscreants have committed the murder of deceased. 12. On 8-1-1995 he had recorded the statement of injured Bhurey. On 19-1-1995 he had submitted charge-sheet. 11. The accused have denied the prosecution case and have examined D. W. 1, Ram Autar Incharge DCR to prove that in the wireless message sent with regard to the occurrence it was mentioned that some miscreants have committed the murder of deceased. 12. The learned Sessions Judge on finding the case of the prosecution proved has convicted and sentenced the appellants by the impugned judgment. 13. We have heard Sri T. Ghosh for the appellants Radhey and Ram Prakash (Crl. Appeal No. 210/2000) and Sri Shashank Shekhar for rest of the appellants and Sr. V. C. Katiyar, A. G. A. for the State. 14. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the occurrence took place in the dark hours of night and not at 6. 00 a. m. alleged by the prosecution and by the unknown persons and not by the appellants. It is also submitted that a dacoity was committed in the village and it was given shape of a preplanned murder. The witnesses are highly inimical and interested and they have given omnibus statement of the occurrence, which cannot be relied upon. It is further argued that large number of persons are falsely implicated in the case. 15. In this case prosecution has examined five eye-witnesses. The first one is Braj Pal Singh (P. W. 1 ). He is informant and father of the deceased Manju alias Manoj and brother of deceased Amar Singh. He has supported the prosecution case. Before the Court he had stated about the enmity with Jatavs and Brahman. The cross case of murder with Jatavs ended in acquittal but enmity is going on. It is stated that one Ram Babu was assaulted by accused Daya Shankar and Ram Sewak and the case is pending and he is a witness in that case. It is further stated that about sixteen months back at 6. 00 a. m. all the accused along with unknown accused came and surrounded them and set on fire houses and when they ran to save their lives accused had fired and caught hold of Manju alias Manoj and Ram Chandra Nai. Manju was shot dead by the accused near the house of Awadhesh and threw him in the fire. Ram Chandra was shot dead near the house of Ram Babu. Manju was shot dead by the accused near the house of Awadhesh and threw him in the fire. Ram Chandra was shot dead near the house of Ram Babu. It is further stated that when his brother Amar Singh ran to save his life he was shot dead near the house of Sadhu. Bhurey had received injuries from the firing of accused. All the accused were armed with country made guns, rifles and country made pistols. He had further stated that Manju was assaulted by lathi and when he fell down he was shot and then thrown in the fire. He had stated that four-five accused were armed with lathis and they were unknown. Five six accused were armed with rifles and four-five accused were armed with guns and others were armed with country made pistols. He had stated that he had mentioned in the report weapons which each accused was carrying but he had not informed investigating officer and he can not tell the reasons why it is not mentioned in the report. He had admitted that he had not mentioned in the report, nor in his statement before the investigating officer about the individual role of the accused as who had caught hold of which deceased or who fired upon whom. It is further stated that none of the accused had covered their face. From the evidence it is clear that he is highly interested and inimical witness and he had not mentioned the weapons of individual accused nor he had mentioned individual roles of the accused. A perusal of the post-mortem report shows that deceased Amar Singh had received only three fire-arm injuries. Manju Singh had received two fire-arm injuries and Ram Chandra Nai, had received two fire-arm injuries and all the fire-arm injuries are from a very close range as doctor had found wadding during the post-mortem examination. One of the deceased is his son and one deceased is his brother and even then he could not specify the weapons and roles of the accused. This indicates that he had not seen the actual occurrence otherwise these important facts should have been mentioned in the FIR or in his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. 16. Second witness is Ashok Kumar (PW 2 ). He is son of Ram Chandra deceased. This indicates that he had not seen the actual occurrence otherwise these important facts should have been mentioned in the FIR or in his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. 16. Second witness is Ashok Kumar (PW 2 ). He is son of Ram Chandra deceased. He had stated that all the accused alongwith 4-5 unknown persons came and surrounded the Mohalla of Thakurs and started firing and set on fire the houses and started threatening them. Ram Sewak, Ram Baran and Daya Shankar caught hold of his father and took him towards the Mohalla of Thakurs and he followed them and pleaded for mercy but they shot him near the house of Ram Sewak but he had not died there and they again took him assaulting towards the house of Awadhesh where accused armed with lathi reached and assaulted him with lathiand he was shot dead near the house of Mehtar. He had not seen anybody assaulting Amar Singh. Bhurey has also received fire-arm injury. He had further stated that his father was assaulted 2-4 times by lathi. This fact that his father was caught hold by Ram Baran, Ram Sewak and Daya Shankar was not mentioned by him to the Investigating Officer. He had not informed the Investigating Officer about assault on his father at two places. He had also stated that one or two persons had covered their faces. This witness is also in interested and inimical witness. His statement that three persons namely Ram Baran, Ram Sewak and Daya Shankar had caught hold of his father cannot be accepted only because he is stating this fact for the first time in Court. He had not mentioned this fact to the Investigating Officer nor any other witness corroborates him. In his statement he had mentioned that his father was assaulted by lathi but the post-mortem report does not support this statement. There is no injury of lathi in the post-mortem report. 17. Third witness is Jagbir (PW 3) he is nephew of Braj Pal Singh (PW 1) and son of deceased Amar Singh. He had fully supported the prosecution case. He had mentioned the names of all the appellants and they all were armed with country made rifles, guns and country made pistols. 17. Third witness is Jagbir (PW 3) he is nephew of Braj Pal Singh (PW 1) and son of deceased Amar Singh. He had fully supported the prosecution case. He had mentioned the names of all the appellants and they all were armed with country made rifles, guns and country made pistols. He had stated that Amar Singh was his father and Raghubeer was his brother and he was murdered and the case was ended in acquittal. Rajeshwar and others were accused in the murder case of Raghubeer. The case was acquitted because it was a cross case. He had stated that he had seen which accused was armed with lathi and who were armed with gun, rifle and country made pistol. He had told the Investigating Officer but he cannot tell the reasons as to why he had not mentioned in his statement. This witness is a close relation and inimical and he had also not mentioned the weapon and role of the accused. He had stated that he had seen the shooting of his father but who shot his father is neither in his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. nor in his statement in Court. 18. Fourth witness is Awadhesh (PW 4 ). He had stated that Amar Singh, Manju Singh alias Manoj and Ram Chandra Nai were murdered and houses of Udaiveer, Nek Ram, Braj Pal were set on fire and his house was also set on fire. At about 6. 00 a. m. accused Rajveer, Ramveer, Ved Ram, Om Veer, Ram Sewak, Ram Baran, Daya Shankar, Ram Sanehi, Ramuwa, Radhey, Ram Prakash alias Lohari, Pati Ram alias Patanga, Rajesh alias Tillu and Rajeshwar and 4-5 unknown persons came. The unknown persons were armed with lathi, Danda and others were armed with rifles, guns and country made pistols. Manju alias Manoj was killed in front of his house and he was thrown in the fire. Amar Singh was assaulted by rifles and guns. Amar Singh was killed on the western side of Dhabaji Ki Marhaiya. Ram Chandra was killed near the house of Ram Babu Mehtar. He had stated that Ram Chandra deceased was my relative (Dau ). Manju alias Manoj was killed in front of his house and he was thrown in the fire. Amar Singh was assaulted by rifles and guns. Amar Singh was killed on the western side of Dhabaji Ki Marhaiya. Ram Chandra was killed near the house of Ram Babu Mehtar. He had stated that Ram Chandra deceased was my relative (Dau ). He had also stated that he has disclosed about the occurrence first time in Court and he had not disclosed to any one before it and Braj Pal, P. W. 1 is present today and when his statement was earlier recorded he had accompanied him. He had also denied his statement given to the Investigating Officer. He had also stated that unknown persons had not covered their faces and three persons who were known to him had covered their faces and unknown persons were armed with Lathi, Danda. He had not tell the reasons why these facts are not mentioned in his statement given to the Investigating Officer. He had also stated that he had not disclosed the name of the accused to the Investigating Officer and he had disclose the name of the accused first time in Court. The name of this witness (P. W. 4) is not mentioned in the FIR. The FIR gives the name of several persons but his name is not in the FIR nor Braj Pal Singh (PW 1) had mentioned his name in his statement in the Court. Awadhesh (PW 4) had not specified any weapon to any of the accused nor he had mentioned any role of any accused. He had made only omnibus statement regarding participation of all the accused. 19. The last eye-witness is Bhurey. (PW 5 ). He had stated that Manju alias Manoj, Ram Chandra and Amar Singh were murdered and houses were set on fire in the village and he has also received injuries during the occurrence. He had stated that Rajeshwar, Rajveer, Ram Veer, Pati Ram alias Patanga, Om Veer, Ved Ram, Ramuwa, Ram Baran, Daya Shankar, Ram Sewak, Ram Sanehi, Radhey and Ram Prakash were killed the deceased alongwith 4-5 unknown persons and they were armed with guns, lathi and Danda. It is stated that when Amar Singh and Manju alias Manoj came out from the house accused had fled. It is stated that when Amar Singh and Manju alias Manoj came out from the house accused had fled. Manju went towards the house of Awadhesh and Amar Singh ran towards western side of the village. Both were killed and prior to this he had received fire-arm injury and he had seen fire in the village. He had stated that he had not seen assault on Manju and Amar Singh. In his statement he had not mentioned that any of the accused was armed with rifle or country made pistol. This witness had assigned only the weapons as Gun, lathi and Danda. He had not assigned the rifle or country made pistol to any of the accused. He had also stated that some of the miscreants had covered their faces. He had stated that Raja Ram, Kishori Lal and Mani Ram used to reside in their village and prior to this occurrence they had spent (sic) an all the three were cousin of Ram Baran. Raja Ram, Kishori Lal and Mani Ram had set on fire his house and he had suffered his losses. He had stated that police had called him at 1. 00 p. m. but his statement by the Investigating Officer was recorded after one month. The Investigating Officer in his statement that Bhurey had not met him in the village on the date of occurrence. Bhurey, P. W. 5 was medically examined at 10. 40 p. m. and there is no explanation for his delayed medical examination. This witness according to the prosecution is an injured witness and even he had not specified any weapon and role to any of the accused. This witness had not even mentioned rifle or country made pistol in the hands of any of the accused. 20. We have considered the evidence of these witnesses. It is not desputed that all the witnesses are interested and long standing enmity is between the two sides and none of the witness had specified any weapon or any role to any individual accused. According to the prosecution total accused who had participated in the occurrence are 14 named persons and 4-5 unknown persons. It is not disputed that role of firing is assigned to all the accused. According to the prosecution total accused who had participated in the occurrence are 14 named persons and 4-5 unknown persons. It is not disputed that role of firing is assigned to all the accused. The post-mortem report of Amar Singh shows that he had received 3 fire-arm injuries and doctor had found wadding in the body and Manju alias Manoj had received two fire-arm injuries and wadding was also found during the post-mortem examination. Ram Chandra has received two fire-arm injuries and doctor had found wadding during the post-mortem examination. The deceased persons had received total in all 7 injuries, which clearly shows that number of accused is exaggerated. The witnesses have implicated all the accused in omnibus allegation, which cannot be accepted so as to rule out possibility of implicating some innocent persons. In appreciating this kind of evidence the Courts have always considered that such of those accused to whom specific over acts have been attributed consistently and the same is corroborated by the medical evidence and the circumstances of the case, can safely be convicted. In Pandurang and others v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216 it is held that unless therefore a witness particularizes when there are a number of accused it is ordinarily unsafe to accept omnibus inclusions like this at their face value. " 21. In the case of Lala Ram and others v. State of U. P. , reported in 1990 (1) JIC 283 (All) ; JT. 1990 (1) SC 169, Supreme Court observed: "having given our anxious consideration we find it extremely difficult to accept such an omnibus allegation and confirm the conviction of all the 10 accused. Such a confirmation, in our view, is bound to result in injustice and there is no other way of scrutinizing evidence of these interested witnesses to separate grain from the chaff. " 22. Looking at the number of injuries sustained by the deceased it is impossible to hold that all the fourteen accused would have participated in the occurrence especially when all the injuries are from a very close range. 23. In this case none of the witnesses have made any specific allegation against any of the accused persons. Looking at the injuries sustained by the deceased and large number of accused it is difficult to hold that all the accused persons have participated in the occurrence. 23. In this case none of the witnesses have made any specific allegation against any of the accused persons. Looking at the injuries sustained by the deceased and large number of accused it is difficult to hold that all the accused persons have participated in the occurrence. P. W. 5 Bhurey is an injured witness but he had not mentioned any specific role to any of the accused. Surprisingly Investigating Officer had not met him on the date of occurrence and his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. is also recorded after one month and there is no explanation for this delay. His testimony is not so reliable to hold guilty all the accused. 24. Considering the evidence on record and submissions of the learned Counsel we are of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the Sessions Judge has committed an error in convicting the appellants. 25. In the result the appeals are allowed. The order of the Sessions Judge in S. T. No. 352 of 1995 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offences charged for. The appellants Rajeshwar, Ram Veer, Raj Veer, Om Veer, Ram Sewak, Daya Shankar, Pati Ram alias Patanga, Rajesh alias Tillu, Ved Ram, Ramua Jatav, Radhey, Ram Prakash and Ram Sanehi are in Jail. They shall be released forthwith unless liable to be detained in connection with some other case. The appellant Ram Baran is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds and sureties are discharged. The reference made by the Sessions Judge is also rejected. Appeals allowed. .