J. C. GUPTA, J. The above named six appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 3-3-1987 in Sessions Trial No. 714 of 1983 whereby they have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 I. P. C. , to five years R. I. each under Section 307/149 I. P. C. and one year R. I. each under Section 148 I. P. C. Sentences are to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that all the appellants are resident of village Paisa Khera, Police Station Pawayan District Shahjahanpur. Faiyaz Khan P. W. 1 is also a resident of the same village. It is alleged that election for the post of delegate of the Co-operative Society of Nyaya Panchayat Badehla was to be held. Faiyaz Khan and accused Jumman Khan both were candidates in that election. Jumman Khan pressurized Faiyaz Khan to withdraw his candidature in his favour but Faiyaz Khan refused to do so. Jumman Khan then threatened him with dire consequences. 3. Further allegation of the prosecution is that on 6-9-1983 one Bankey sweeper was taking his pigs through the passage in front of house of the accused Jumman. The accused told Bankey not to take his pigs from that route. Bankey did not listen. He was assaulted by accused Jumman Khan and others. Bankey lodged report against Jumman Khan and others wherein Faiyaz Khan was cited as a witness for Bankey. Accused party asked Faiyaz Khan not to give evidence against them but Faiyaz Khan told them that whatever he had seen he would depose. Jumman Khan and others were thus bearing enmity against Faiyaz Khan. 4. It is alleged that on 25-9-1983 at about 5. 30 p. m. Faiyaz Khan P. W. 1 alongwith his brother Eijaz Khan, deceased of this case and Wasim Khan P. W. 2 were sitting under a neem tree in front of the house of Tauqir Khan. They were talking with each other. Accused Jumman Khan came there and asked Faiyaz Khan to file affidavit in his favour in the case instituted by Bankey sweeper. Faiyaz Khan did not pay any heed to this request of accused Jumman Khan, whereupon accused started abusing him. Eijaz Khan and Wasim Khan asked accused Jumman Khan to stop absuing. Accused Jumman Khan went back to his house saying that he would see them just now. Faiyaz Khan did not pay any heed to this request of accused Jumman Khan, whereupon accused started abusing him. Eijaz Khan and Wasim Khan asked accused Jumman Khan to stop absuing. Accused Jumman Khan went back to his house saying that he would see them just now. Within a few minutes thereafter accused Jumman Khan armed with rifle, accused Sami Ullah, Ismail Khan, Laddan armed with D. B. B. L. guns and Abrar, Shafayat armed with S. B. B. L. guns came there from south. Accused Jumman Khan challenged and incited his companions to kill Eijaz Khan and others. All the accused persons started firing from their respective arms. Jumman Khan any how saved himself by going behind the neem tree. Deceased Eijaz Khan and Wasim Ullah however sustained fire-arm injuries at the hands of accused persons. Witnesses Ahmad, Masroor Ullah, Mohd. Shafi, Majid Khan and many other villagers reached there. On their challenge, the accused persons ran away towards south. Deceased Eijaz Khan on receiving fire-arm injuries fell down under the thatch of Tauqir Khan and died on the spot. 5. Jumman Khan went to the police station in the same evening and lodged oral First Information Report (Ex. Ka. 1) at 9. 30 p. m. Case was registered and investigation ensued. The Investigating Officer went to the place of occurrence and found the dead-body of Eijaz deceased lying under the thatch of Tauqir Khan. The dead-body was taken into custody and sent to mortuary for post- mortem examination after holding inquest. Investigating Officer then prepared site plan Ex. Ka. 11. In this site plan, the place where deceased with the witnesses was talking, has been indicated by letter a. The place where dead-body of deceased was found has been shown by letter f. The distance between a and f is noted as 12 paces. The place from where accused persons opened fire has been shown by letter b. The distance between a and b is indicated as 30 paces. Letter c denotes the place from where witness Maskalla Khan had witnessed the incident from his house, while letter d denotes the place from where witness Mohd. Safi witnessed the incident from his house. The distance between b and c is 11 paces while between b and d is 15 paces e is the place from where witnesses Ahmad Hasan Khan and Majid Khan saw the incident. Safi witnessed the incident from his house. The distance between b and c is 11 paces while between b and d is 15 paces e is the place from where witnesses Ahmad Hasan Khan and Majid Khan saw the incident. This place was situated at a distance of 18 paces from the scene of occurrence. It may also be relevant to mention here that when the Investigating Officer inspected the scene of occurrence he found no tikli, pellets or empty cartridges either at place a or b or f or in between. No drop of blood was also found either near about the place a or in between a and f. Blood was found by the side of dead- body in the Chhappar of Taquir Khan. Statements of witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the six nominated accused persons. 6. Before the trial Court prosecution produced six witnesses in all, of whom only Faiyaz Khan P. W. 1 and Wasim Khan P. W. 2 were witnesses of fact. P. W. 3 Dr. P. S. Varma is the Medical Officer who conducted autospy on the deed-body of deceased Eijaz Khan on 27-9-1983 at 3. 30 p. m. Deceased was aged about 18 years and probable time of death was reported to be about two days. Rigor mortis had passed off from both the upper and lower extremites. Body was decomposed. Following ante-mortem injuries were found : (1) Multiple fire-arm wounds of entry on right side chest from in an area of 25 cm. x 10 cm. and eight fire-arm wounds of entry on left side chest in an area of 17 cm. x 10 cm. Each wound was measuring 0. 3 cm. x 0. 3 cm. x chest cavity deep. Margins were inverted and lacerated. No blackening or tattooing was seen. Direction was from front to back horizontally. (2) Five fire-arm wounds of entry on front of left arm in an area of 16 cm. x 8 cm. , each measuring 0. 3 cm. x 0. 3 cm. Margins were inverted and lacerated. All were muscle deep. No blackening or tattooing seen. Direction was front to back horizontally. (3) Four fire-arm wounds of entry on front of right arm, two on right wrist dorsal side and five on left side. Each wound was 0. 3 cm. x 0. 3 cm. x muscle deep. x 0. 3 cm. Margins were inverted and lacerated. All were muscle deep. No blackening or tattooing seen. Direction was front to back horizontally. (3) Four fire-arm wounds of entry on front of right arm, two on right wrist dorsal side and five on left side. Each wound was 0. 3 cm. x 0. 3 cm. x muscle deep. Margins were lacerated and inverted. No blackening and tattooing found. Direction was front to back horizontally. The internal examination revealed that pleura was lacerated on both sides. Right and left lung were also lacerated and about one litre of blood in left chest cavity and half litre on right chest cavity was found. Cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of fire-arm injuries. In all 23 small metallic pellets were recovered from the body. Post-mortem report of Eijaz Khan is Ex. Ka. 2. In his deposition before the Court Dr. P. S. Varma stated that death of Eijaz in the evening of 25-9-1983 was probable. 7. Dr. H. P. Bhatt P. W. 4 had medically examined injured Wasim Khan on 26-9-83 at 12. 10 p. m. and he found following injuries at the time of medical examination : (1) Lacerated wound 0. 25 cm. x 0. 25 cm. x scale deep, surrounded by swelling present on front of head 9 cm above from root of nose. No blackening, charring present. (2) Lacerated wound 0. 25 cm. x 0. 25 cm. x skin deep present on right fore head 4 cm. above right eye- brow. No blackening and charring present. (3) Two circular lacerated wounds each measuring 0. 25 cm. x 0. 25 cm. x skin deep present on nose. No blackening present. (4) Lacerated wound 0. 25 cm. x 0. 25 cm. x muscle deep present on middle of upper lip. No blackening and charring present. (5) Lacerated wound 0. 25 cm. x 0. 25 cm. x not probed present on left side of chest 15 cm. below from left nipple. No blackening and charring present. (6) Lacerated wound 0. 25 cm. x 0. 25 cm. x not probed present on right side of chest 13 cm. below from right nipple. No blackening and charring present. (7) Two oval lacerated wounds 0. 25 cm. x 0. 25 cm. x not probed present on front of abdomen just 6 cm. away from umbilicus and 2nd 8 cm. (6) Lacerated wound 0. 25 cm. x 0. 25 cm. x not probed present on right side of chest 13 cm. below from right nipple. No blackening and charring present. (7) Two oval lacerated wounds 0. 25 cm. x 0. 25 cm. x not probed present on front of abdomen just 6 cm. away from umbilicus and 2nd 8 cm. away from umbilicus. No blackening and charring present. (8) Seven oval lacerated wounds each measuring 0. 25 cm. x 0. 25 cm. x not probed present on front of left thigh in an area of 22 cm. x 12 cm. 3 cm. below from inguining region. No blackening and charring present. (9) Six oval lacerated wounds each measuring from 0. 25 cm. x 0. 25 cm. x not probed present on front of inner aspect of right thigh in an area of 29 cm. x 13 cm. No blackening and scorching present. (10) One oval lacerated wound 0. 25 cm. x 0. 25 cm. x bone deep present on front of left leg 9 cm. above from left ankle joint. No blackening and scorching present. 8. In the opinion of doctor except injuries No. 2,3 and 4 which were simple, rest of the injuries were kept under observation and X-ray was advised. Duration was about one day. The doctor has also deposed that injuries of Wasim Khan could be caused on 25-9- 1983 at about 5. 30 p. m. Injury Report of Wasim Khan is Ex. Ka. 4. The X-ray Report, Ex. Ka. 3, was prepared by Dr. P. S. Varma. The X-ray Report confirmed that the injuries sustained by Wasim Khan were pellet injuries caused by fire-arms. 9. P. W. 5 Head Constable Surendra Pal has deposed that check FIR was prepared by him on the basis of oral report lodged by Faiyaz Khan P. W. 1. On the basis of this report case was registered in the general diary at Serial No. 39 at 9. 30 p. m. Copy of the general diary entry has been proved as Ex. Ka. 5. 10. P. W. 6 V. P. Singh was posted as Station Officer at P. S. Powayan. He himself conducted the investigation and submitted charge-sheet. 11. Prosecution also filed affidavit of Constable Dharmapal Singh who had escorted the dead-body to mortuary. 12. 30 p. m. Copy of the general diary entry has been proved as Ex. Ka. 5. 10. P. W. 6 V. P. Singh was posted as Station Officer at P. S. Powayan. He himself conducted the investigation and submitted charge-sheet. 11. Prosecution also filed affidavit of Constable Dharmapal Singh who had escorted the dead-body to mortuary. 12. P. W. 1 Faiyaz Khan and P. W. 2 Wasim Khan in their statements before the trial Court have stated that the incident had occurred at about 5. 30 p. m. when they were sitting under the neem tree. According to them all the accused persons started indiscriminate firing upon the deceased and the witnesses. According to them Eijaz Khan and Wasim Khan received fire-arm injuries in the firing while Faiyaz Khan escaped injury as he concealed himself behind the neem tree. 13. Jumman Khan appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. denied the prosecution allegations. According to him he has been falsely implicated on account of previous enmity. He stated that Buddhan Khan and others had assaulted Mukhtar Khan his partner and in that case Buddhan Khan and others were convicted. In that case this accused had done pairavi for Mukhtar Khan. Therefore, Buddhan Khan and others were inimical to him Abrar Khan stated that he was an old man of 82 years of age and was not even able to move. Accused Ismail Khan stated that he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity. Similar were the statements of other accused excepting Sami Ullah Khan. According to accused Sami Ullah Khan, his brother was Mangal Khan whose cousins were Liyaqat Khan and Sharafat Khan. Deceased Eijaz and Wasim used to go there. They used to misbehave. On some occasions some altercation had occurred between Mangal Khan, Wasim and Eijaz Khan. On the date of incident they fired upon Mangal Khan in respect of which report was lodged and cross case also proceeded. As a counter blast the present case has been instituted. Badhel Khan his maternal uncle had given evidence against Buddhan Khan in a case in which Buddhan Khan was convicted. For that reason Buddhan Khan was annoyed with him. 14. Ex. Kha. 2 is the copy of First Information Report lodged by Mangal Khan against Buddhan Khan, Dulare Khan, Mukhtar Khan, Jumman Khan, Faiyaz Khan and Eijaz Khan deceased. Badhel Khan his maternal uncle had given evidence against Buddhan Khan in a case in which Buddhan Khan was convicted. For that reason Buddhan Khan was annoyed with him. 14. Ex. Kha. 2 is the copy of First Information Report lodged by Mangal Khan against Buddhan Khan, Dulare Khan, Mukhtar Khan, Jumman Khan, Faiyaz Khan and Eijaz Khan deceased. This report was lodged on 27-9-1983 at 16. 35 on the basis of which Case Crime No. 241-A under Sections 147/148/307 I. P. C. was registered. This FIR was also investigated and cross Session trial proceeded before the same Judge in the Court below. Injuries of Mangal Khan were examined by Dr. Jasbir Singh C. W. 1 who was examined as a Court witness in appeal by the order dated 7-2-2001. Dr. Jasbir Singh found following injuries on the person of Mangal Khan : (1) Multiple lacerated oval fire-arm wounds measuring 0. 5 cm. x 4 cm. to 0. 4 x 0. 3 cm. over the whole back 50 x 32 cm. area. From base of neck (upper first) and apart occion (lower part) outer part of back. In some wounds pellets are palpable. No charring, blackening or scorching present. Margins are inverted. (2) Lacerated oval fire-arm wound 0. 4 cm. x 0. 3 cm. x muscle deep over the right side of buttock 10 cm. above anus at 1. Oclock position. No charring, blackening or scorching present. Pellets palpable margins inverted. (3) Lacerated oval small wound (fire-arm) 0. 3 cm. x 0. 2 cm. over the lower and medial-part of right buttock 8 cm. below the arms at 5 Oclock position. No charring blackening and scorching present. Margins are inverted, pellets not palpable. (4) Lacerated oval fire-arm wound 0. 3 x 0. 2 cm. over left side of head of occipital region 8 cm. from left ear at at 3 Oclock position pellets is palpable and scalp deep. No charring and blackening present. Margins are inverted, pus is not present. (5) Lacerated oval fire-arm wound 0. 4 cm. x 0. 3 cm. depth not taken over the front and lateral part of left side of chest 17 cm. below left axilla and 13 cm. below and lateral to left nipple. No charring and blackening present. Margins are inverted, pellet is not palpable, advised X-ray. (6) Abraded contusion 5 cm. x 4 cm. 4 cm. x 0. 3 cm. depth not taken over the front and lateral part of left side of chest 17 cm. below left axilla and 13 cm. below and lateral to left nipple. No charring and blackening present. Margins are inverted, pellet is not palpable, advised X-ray. (6) Abraded contusion 5 cm. x 4 cm. over the post lateral part of right hand at the base of right thumb, 6 cm front of right wrist. Irregular Radish blue. (7) Contusion 16 cm. x 12 cm. area radish blue over the front and medial part of right elbow including lower portion of upper right wrist and upper portion of right fore arm. Defused swelling present. Margins are red in colour. (8) Two oval lacerated fire-arm wound 0. 4 cm. x 0. 4 cm. each, 4 cm. apart in a line over the medial side of right upper arm lower part, 8 cm above right elbow proving not done. No charring blackening or scorching present. Margins are inverted. Pellet is palpable. (9) Lacerated oval fire-arm wound 0. 5 cm. x 4 cm. over the back of left elbow, probing not done. Pellet is not palpable. No charring, blackening or scorching present. Advised X-ray. Margin inverted. 15. Dr. Jasbir Singh in his deposition before this Court has also stated that in his opinion Injury No. 6 was simple while rest were kept under observation. Injuries No. 6 and 7 were caused by blunt object while rest were of fire-arm. The injuries were about one and half day old. Mangal Khan injured was brought before him by Constable of P. S. Puwayan. Dr. Jasbir Singh has categorically stated that injuries of Mangal Khan could be caused in the evening at about 5. 30 p. m. He has further deposed that most of the fire- arm injuries were on vital parts and pellets were palpable and that these injuries could not be self- inflicted. X- ray examination of Mangal Khan was done by Dr. P. S. Varma P. W. 3 who in his statement before the trial Court has stated that on 28-9-1983 he had taken X-ray of Mangal Khan and found radio opaque shadow in his chest, back and right arm. He proved the X- ray Report as Ex. Kha. 1. 16. Accused did not examine any witness in defence. P. S. Varma P. W. 3 who in his statement before the trial Court has stated that on 28-9-1983 he had taken X-ray of Mangal Khan and found radio opaque shadow in his chest, back and right arm. He proved the X- ray Report as Ex. Kha. 1. 16. Accused did not examine any witness in defence. On appraisal of evidence the learned Session Judge has found all the appellants guilty and accordingly they have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 17. We have heard Sri P. N. Misra and Sri Satish Trivedi Senior Advocates for the appellants, learned A. G. A. , for the State and Sri Amar Saran for the complainant. 18. It may be relevant to mention here that as per the report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur dated 18-3-2000 Abrar Khan has died during the pendency of appeal, accordingly his appeal stands abated. 19. As far as factum of death of Abrar Khan is concerned the same has neither been disputed nor assailed before us by the learned Counsel for the appellants. It has been also not disputed that injured Wasim Khan had also sustained fire-arm injuries in the same incident wherein deceased had received injuries. However, the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants have been that both the prosecution witnesses examined at the trial are highly inimical and interested and their evidence does not inspire confidence; that the number of injuries found on the deceased and the injured do not coincide with the number of assailants and the prosecution has exaggerated their number; that the prosecution has utterly failed to offer any explanation regarding serious fire-arm injuries found on the person of Mangal Khan on accused side and from this failure it should be inferred that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not true and the prosecution has purposely suppressed the genesis of the origin of occurrence and that such non-explanation will assume greater importance in this case because the evidence consists of interested and inimical witnesses only, as independent witnesses have been with held. It has also been urged that the motive alleged by the prosecution has not been established which in the circumstances of the case cannot be lost sight of as the defence has put a cross version of the incident wherein Mangal Khan on their side had suffered very serious fire-arm injuries on his person which by no stretch of imagination could be self-inflicted or self-suffered. On the other hand learned Counsel for the complainant and the learned A. G. A. have tried to support the judgment of the trial Court. 20. As far as motive part of the prosecution case is concerned it is alleged that before the occurrence in question an election was to be held for the post of delegate of Co-operative Society. The complainant Faiyaz Khan P. W. 1 and accused Jumman Khan both were candidates for the same. Accused Jumman Khan wanted the complainant to withdraw his name for which the later was not agreeable whereupon accused Jumman Khan is alleged to have threatened him with dire consequences. This motive has been stated by P. W. 1 Faiyaz Khan. In cross-examination however he admitted that he did not have any knowledge if any notification of election had been issued. He further admitted that no one had filed nomination. There was no written order fixing date for the election. He further admitted that no such election was however held. He also admitted that neither he lodged any report nor had moved any application against Jumman Khan with regard to the alleged threat. There is no other corroborative evidence. Accused persons have denied the said allegation. In our opinion this motive has not been clearly established from the evidence on record. 21. The other motive which the prosecution has alleged is that prior to the incident in question an incident had occurred between Jumman Khan and Bankey sweeper on the issue of the later taking his pigs from in front of the house of Jumman Khan. Bankey sweeper had lodged a report against Jumman Khan and others wherein Faiyaz Khan was cited as a witness. It is further alleged that Jumman Khan accused asked Faiyaz Khan not to give evidence against him in that case and when he did not agree. Jumman Khan extended threat to him. Accused Jumman Khan has denied this allegation of prosecution. Bankey sweeper has not been produced as a witness in this case. It is further alleged that Jumman Khan accused asked Faiyaz Khan not to give evidence against him in that case and when he did not agree. Jumman Khan extended threat to him. Accused Jumman Khan has denied this allegation of prosecution. Bankey sweeper has not been produced as a witness in this case. As per the statement of P. W. 1 Faiyaz Khan, Bankey sweeper used to reside in the house of Babu which was situated in the south of village. This house was removed by about 50-60 paces from the house of accused Jumman Khan whose house was situated in south west of the Mosque. The witness further admitted that in the case of Bankey sweeper. Masrullah who is also a witness in the present case was also a witness. Masrullah has not been produced in the present case. Faiyaz Khan has admitted that he did not receive any summon to appear as a witness in the case of Bankey sweeper. He further admitted that he had no knowledge if any such case was proceeding in Court. He also admitted that he was never interrogated by police in that case. Though P. W. 2 Wasim Khan has also stated of this motive but his presence at the time of incident alleged to have taken place between Jumman Khan accused and Bankey sweeper has not been stated by P. W. 1 Faiyaz Khan. This motive thus has also not been fully established. We therefore, find that it is doubtful that the incident in question had occurred for the reasons as alleged from the prosecution side. This conclusion of ours is further strengthened by other circumstances appearing in the case which we would point out in the later part of this judgment. 22. It is true that where direct evidence regarding assault is available the question of motive looses much of its importance and the absence or inadequacy of motive would have no adverse effect on the prosecution case if the direct evidence is otherwise found trust-worthy and reliable. 22. It is true that where direct evidence regarding assault is available the question of motive looses much of its importance and the absence or inadequacy of motive would have no adverse effect on the prosecution case if the direct evidence is otherwise found trust-worthy and reliable. However, in a case where there is a cross version of the incident and the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive and further the circumstances appearing in the case raises a needle of suspicion against the prosecution party and the Court is in a doubt that the incident occurred for a reason other than the one as alleged by the prosecution in that event failure to prove motive assumes greater importance. As per the First Information Report lodged by Mangal Khan Ex. Kha. 2 the deceased and his party were having old enmity with him and on the day of occurrence when Mangal Khan was passing through the way lying in front of the house of accused persons he was fired upon and assaulted and in the same incident deceased Eijaz sustained fire-arm injuries at the hands of his own men and he fell down in front of the house of Taukir Khan. However, as per the prosecution case the incident occurred when Faiyaz Khan, Eijaz Khan deceased and Wasim Khan were talking with each other under the neem-tree, accused Jumman Khan came there and asked Faiyaz Khan to file affidavit in his favour. On his refusal he went back and after about 10 minutes all the accused persons arrived there armed with rifle, D. B. B. L. guns and S. B. B. L. guns and all the six accused persons made indiscriminate firing upon Faiyaz Khan and others. According to Faiyaz Khan he did not sustain any injury as he went back behind the neem tree. It is further stated by P. W. 1 Faiyaz Khan that Wasim and Eijaz Khan after sustaining fire-arm injuries ran in the west and Eijaz fell down in the Chhappar of Taukir Khan while Wasim Khan went inside. On examination of evidence on record, we find that there is a great deal of doubt that the incident had occurred at the place and in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. On examination of evidence on record, we find that there is a great deal of doubt that the incident had occurred at the place and in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. As many as six persons armed with rifle, D. B. B. L. guns and S. B. B. L. guns had fired indiscriminately upon Faiyaz Khan, Wasim Khan and Eijaz Khan. Faiyaz Khan as per the own case of prosecution was their dire enemy. It does not sound to reason that if firing was made indiscriminately by as many as six persons, Faiyaz Khan would have not gone unhurt. According to him he did not receive any injury as he hid himself behind the neem tree. No pellet marks were found on the neem tree. The incident occurred during day time and it does not sound to reason that the accused persons would have left Faiyaz Khan without making any attempt over him particularly when he was their main target. His going behind neem tree would have also not gone unnoticed. The allegation of prosecution that Eijaz Khan deceased and Wasim P. W. 2 had sustained fire- arm injuries under the neem tree also does not get support from the spot position. No blood was found at the scene of occurrence or under the neem tree or at any place nearby. Dead-body of Eijaz was found at the place shown by letter f in the site plan Ex. Ka. 11. This place is shown in the Chhappar of Taukeer Khan. The distance between this place and the neem tree which is shown by letter a was 12 paces, meaning thereby that the deceased after sustaining fire-arm injuries ran to a distance of 12 paces. Not even a single drop of blood was found between point a and f. Accused persons are alleged to have fired from a distance of 30 paces from point b which was in the galiyara. No tikli or cartridges were found near about place b. If firing was made from a distance of 30 paces that is about 75 feet, the deceased and injured would not have received injuries of the kind which were in fact found on their persons. Appellant Jumman Khan is alleged to be armed with rifle. He is also alleged to have open fire from his rifle. Appellant Jumman Khan is alleged to be armed with rifle. He is also alleged to have open fire from his rifle. No rifle injury was however found either on the deceased or on injured Wasim. We thus find that it is highly doubtful that the incident had occurred at the place and in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. It is true that Wasim P. W. 2 is an injured witness and his presence at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted but the question which requires determination is whether he has given a correct account of the occurrence or he has placed before the Court a distorted version of the occurrence suppressing the genesis and the origin of the occurrence. As already pointed out above Mangal Khan had himself lodged FIR at the police station stating therein that he was assaulted by Faiyaz Khan, deceased Eijaz Khan and others when he was passing through the way and during the course of firing Eijaz Khan had sustained fire-arm injuries at the hands of his own men. The First Information Report lodged by Mangal Khan has been proved as Ex. Kha. 2. Injuries on Mangal Khan were examined by Dr. Jasbir Singh C. W. 1. His statement was recorded in the cross case which proceeded before the trial Court and it appears that under a mistaken advice the said doctor was not examined in this case by the Counsel who represented accused persons in the trial Court. Even the learned Session Judge failed to summon him as a Court witness though the X-ray Report of Mangal Khan had been brought on record and proved in the statement of P. W. 3 Dr. P. S. Varma, Dr. Jasbir Singh who was examined in the appeal as C. W. 1 has categorically stated that injuries of Mangal Khan could be caused in the evening of 25-9- 1983. Most of the fire-arm injuries were on vital parts in which pellets were palpable. These fire-arm injuries could not be self-inflicted. Injuries No. 6 and 7 were caused by blunt object. As per the version of Mangal Khan he was assaulted by lathi and fire-arms. Both P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 have offered no explanation of the injuries of Mangal Khan. These fire-arm injuries could not be self-inflicted. Injuries No. 6 and 7 were caused by blunt object. As per the version of Mangal Khan he was assaulted by lathi and fire-arms. Both P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 have offered no explanation of the injuries of Mangal Khan. It was vehemently argued by learned Counsel for the appellants that the prosecution has utterly failed to explain the serious injuries of Mangal Khan who was undoubtedly a man of accused party and it must be held that the prosecution has suppressed the truth, benefit therefore, must go to the accused. 23. The law as to how far the prosecution case will be effected on account of non-explanation of injuries suffered on defence side is now well-settled. In the case of Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of U. P. , AIR 1974 SC 1550 , it was held that the question as to what is the effect of the non-explanation of injuries on defence side is a question of fact and not of law. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses and the Court should scrutinize their evidence with all care and caution. 24. In Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar, 1976 (13) ACC 372, the apex Court held that non- explanation of the injuries on the defence side by the prosecution witnesses may affect the prosecution case and such non-explanation will assume greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. 25. In Rajendra Singh v. State of Bihar, 2000 (2) JIC 332 (SC) ; 2000 (41) ACC 696, it was held by the apex Court that it is too well settled that ordinarily the prosecution is not obliged to explain each injury on an accused even though the injuries might have been caused in course of the occurrence, but at the same time if the prosecution fails to explain a grievous injury on the accused which is established to have been caused in course of the same occurrence then certainly the Court looks at the prosecution case with little suspicion on the ground that the prosecution has suppressed the true version of the incident. 26. 26. Learned Counsel for complainant submitted before us that excepting accused Sami Ullah Khan all other accused persons have not stated that incident had occurred with Mangal Khan, and no right of private defence has been pleaded by them. It was further argued that it is ridiculous to believe that Wasim Khan and deceased Eijaz Khan had sustained fire-arm injures at the hands of their own men. Sri Amar Saran argued that as no right of private defence has been pleaded nor any evidence led, it must be held that Eijaz Khan and Wasim Khan had received fire-arm injuries at the hands of present appellants. Accused Sami Ullah Khan in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. has clearly stated that Mangal Khan was his brother and he has died. Therefore, the defence could not be blamed for not examining him as a witness in defence. We may also point out that it is well- settled law that onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence always lies upon the prosecution and at no stage the same shifts to the accused. The Court has first to look into the evidence led by prosecution to find out if the incident had occurred in the manner as alleged by it before scrutinizing the defence plea. It is also well settled that even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false, the burden which lies on the prosecution does not become any less. It is only when this heavy burden lying on the prosecution is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case which would negative it. It is not for the accused at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution itself. Rule of pleadings of civil law does not apply to criminal cases. Unlike in a civil case, it is open to a Criminal Court to give benefit to the accused of a plea even if not stated by him in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. It is not for the accused to firmly establish his defence and it is sufficient if he is able to create a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court showing a preponderance of probability. P. C. It is not for the accused to firmly establish his defence and it is sufficient if he is able to create a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court showing a preponderance of probability. An accused can be convicted only when the Court is in a position to come to a definite conclusion beyond the possibility of reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offences. No conviction can be placed on mere possibilities nor it is permissible for the Court to speculate as to what had really happened. Where both the parties come to Court with untrue facts concealing real truth they are themselves to be blamed. They cannot expect the Court to arrive at any definite conclusion on the basis of unreliable evidence produced either in favour or against by either of the parties. In such cases the Court certainly owes a duty to make an attempt to separate grain from the chaff but if the circumstances appearing in the case are such that it may be found to be an inseparable task the inevitable result would be to extend benefit of doubt to the accused, that is particularly so when the evidence of both the parties is thoroughly unreliable, and cannot be acted upon even in part with safety. It is not open for the Court to bring out a third story which is entirely different from the one set up by the parties. In such cases the Court can only say that the matter is doubtful in the extreme and it is not possible to arrive at any definite conclusion one way or the other. The mere fact that the version given in the First Information Report lodged by Mangal Khan was also not true that would not absolve the prosecution in discharging its burden of proving the case against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt. The mere fact that the version given in the First Information Report lodged by Mangal Khan was also not true that would not absolve the prosecution in discharging its burden of proving the case against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt. Once we have found above that the motive alleged by the prosecution has not been firmly established; that both the witnesses produced from prosecution side are highly interested and inimical and independent persons though admittedly present at the time of alleged incident were withheld by the prosecution; and that it is not established beyond doubt that the incident had occurred at the place and in the manner as alleged by the prosecution, it would be hazardous to hold the appellants guilty of the offences charged for, particularty when neither the prosecution nor the defence has been able to show with certainly how and where the incident occurred and where persons on both sides received serious injuries and the Court is left with guesses and conjectures. In these circumstances we are left with no option but to acquit the accused persons by giving them the benefit of doubt. 27. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court by the judgment dated 3-3-1987 in Session Trial No. 714 of 1973 are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the offences charged for. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal allowed. .