JUDGMENT 1. 1. Nine appellants Premchand, Lalla, Jagdish, Khubiram, Ram Narain, Pooran, Lichhman, Prahalad & Ramsahai were indicted before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No.1, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 66/1991 for having committed murder of Natha. The Addl. Sessions Judge, No.1, Alwar, vide its judgment dated 24.11.1995 found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as under:- 1. U/S. 302/149 IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/- each. In default of payment of fine, each will suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. U/Ss 323/149 IPC One year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- each. In default of payment of fine, to further suffer 15 days r.i. 3. U/s. 148 IPC One year's rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Against this judgment of conviction that the present action for filing the instant appeal has been resorted to by the appellants. 3. Investigation commenced on the basis of the written report (Ex.P/19) instituted on August 6, 1991 with the P.S.D.A. Alwar by one Prabhati who was not an eye witness of the occurrence. It was interalia alleged in the FIR that the nine appellants armed with Pharsas and lathies inflicted blows on the person of Natha while he was going to the Court to attend the case pertaining to land in dispute. Leela was also with him, who also sustained injuries. Initially case under section 147, 149, 341, & 323 IPC was registered but after the death of Natha, it was converted under section 302 IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid. In due course the case came up for trial before learned Aditional Sessions Judge No.1, Alwar. Charges under section 148, 302 read with 149 and 323 were framed. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses in support of its case. The appellants in their explanation under section 313 Cr.RC. claimed innocence. No defence witness was however examined. The learned trial court on hearing the final submissions, conviction and sentenced the appellants as indicated here-in-above. The prosecution case mainly rests on the testimony of alleged eye witnesses namely Ramkishore PW6 and Leela PW7. 4. It is contended by Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants that Ramkishore PW6 and Leela PW7 were the chance witnesses and they were not present at the time of incident. The prosecution case mainly rests on the testimony of alleged eye witnesses namely Ramkishore PW6 and Leela PW7. 4. It is contended by Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants that Ramkishore PW6 and Leela PW7 were the chance witnesses and they were not present at the time of incident. So far as the injury sustained by Leela PW7 is conceded, it is urged by the learned counsel that the said injury was not sustained by him during the course of occurrence. Placing reliance on Sudhir and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 515 , learned counsel canvassed that the testimony of Leela PW7 and Ramkishore PW6 virtually jettisoned the first information report wherein the injuries on the person of the deceased were allegedly caused by sharp edged weapon. Reliance has been placed on Dinesh and Anr. v. State of Haryana, 2001 (10) JT 144 . It is lastly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the testimony of Ramkishore PW6 and Leela PW7 has not been corroborated by the medical evidence and in the absence of corroboration by medical evidence it is not possible to find the exact number of assailants therefore, all the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. 5. Per contra, learned PR supported the impugned judgment and canvassed that the presence of Ramkishore PW6 and Leela PW7 at the time of incident was must natural and they were the trustworthy witnesses. 6. We have reflected over the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. As per post-mortem report (Ex.P/15) the deceased Natha sustained following injuries:- 1. lacerated wound 4cm x 1.5 cms on the middle of the head (mid perietal region); 2. lacerated wound 3cms x 1 cm. on the right of the skull two in number 6 cms. above the right ear; 3. lacerated wound 2cms x 1 cms on the left side of the head 10 cms. above the left ear. 4. lacerated wound 3cms x 2cms. on the left side of the occipital region; 5. deformity on the back of the left forearm c/swelling about 5cms x 4cms. 6. swelling c/deformity 6cms x 3cms. on the lateral aspect of the left upper arm 7. lacerated wound 1cms x 1cms. on the left elbow; 8. swelling 6cms x 4cms. with deformity of the right upper arm; 9. deformity c/swelling 5cms x 3cms. deformity on the back of the left forearm c/swelling about 5cms x 4cms. 6. swelling c/deformity 6cms x 3cms. on the lateral aspect of the left upper arm 7. lacerated wound 1cms x 1cms. on the left elbow; 8. swelling 6cms x 4cms. with deformity of the right upper arm; 9. deformity c/swelling 5cms x 3cms. of A the upper part of the right forearm; 10. two contusion about 8cms. x 3cms. on the back of the right side of the trunk; and 11. Lacerated wound 1cms. x 1cms. on the lower third of the right leg front. Shri Leela PW.7 was also medically examined and as per the injury report (Ex. R16) he sustained the following injuries:- 1. lacerated wound 4cms x .5 cm irregular on the middle of the forehead; 2. Contusion shakyness and tenderness of the upper all incisors teeth 3cms. x 2cms. on the middle of the upper jaw; 3. contusion 3cms. x 2cms. on the middle of front of teh left upper arm; and 4. Contusion two size 2cms. x 1 cms. on the back of the right middle and ring finger. 8. It is thus evident that neither the deceased nor did Leila sustained injuries caused by sharp edged weapon. 9. Ramkishore P.W.6 and Leela RW.7 are the chance witness, therefore, we have cautiously scanned their testimony. Ramkishore in his deposition stated that Pooran, Ramsingh and Lichhman inflicted Barchhi blows whereas other appellants inflicted lathi blows on the person of Natha. Pooran inflicted Pharsi blow on the forehead of Leela. In his cross-examination, he said that he could not see whether blows with Pharsis were caused from the blunt side or sharp side. Leela (PW7) is the nephew of the deceased. At the time of incident, he resided in another village. He deposed that Pooran, Ramsingh and Lichhman inflicted Pharsi blows on the person of the deceased and Pooran gave Pharsi blow on his head. We find that in the cross-examination severe dent has been caused and the testimony of these witnesses has been shattered. Leela did not sustain injuries with sharp weapon. It is highly improbable that the three accused Ram Singh, Pooran and Lichhman who were although allegedly armed with sharp edged weapons would cause injuries from the blunt side of those weapons. We find that in the cross-examination severe dent has been caused and the testimony of these witnesses has been shattered. Leela did not sustain injuries with sharp weapon. It is highly improbable that the three accused Ram Singh, Pooran and Lichhman who were although allegedly armed with sharp edged weapons would cause injuries from the blunt side of those weapons. From the medical evidence, it is established that neither the deceased sustained any sharp injury nor did Leela received incised wounds. The evidence of Dr. Gopal Sharma, P.W. 10 shows that there were no injuries on the person of the deceased which could be caused by Pharsi.10. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dinesh & Anr. v. State of Haryana (Supra) indicated that in absence of corroboration by medical evidence, it is not possible to find exact number of assailants.11. In view of the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased, it is difficult to hold that the accused who were armed with sharp edged weapons would have participated in the incident. The prosecution case appears to be highly exaggerated and embellished. As such possibility of over implication of the assailants cannot be ruled out. The present one is the case where a little grain has been mixed up with so much of chaf that it is almost impossible to separate the grain. Witnesses Ramkishore and Leela are wholly unreliable witnesses and we are of the view that they were not present at the time of incident. The prosecution appears to withhold the origin and genesis of the occurrence. There is a reasonable doubt about the appellants having participated in the incident in the manner as alleged by the prosecution therefore, the benefit thereof must go to them. In our opinion, the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution.12. In view of the discussions made herein above, we allow the appeal and set-aside the impugned conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants and they stand acquitted from the charges under sections 302/149, 323/149 and 148 IPC. Appellants Premchand, Lalla, Jagdish, Khubiram and Ramnarain are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged. Appellants Pooran, Lichhrn Prahlad and Ramsahai are in custody. They shall be released forthwith;'if not, required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******