ORDER : 1. The first respondent was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 30 Indian Penal Code while respondent Nos.2 to 10 were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 in regard to incident which took place on 1st May, 1976 at about 6.30 p.m. and a subsequent incident thereafter in which one Balak Ram died. The complaint in this regard was filed by the appellant at 7.30 a.m. on 2nd May, 1976. The trial court separated the two incidents into two cases and found in the first case the first respondent guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with 149 and 148 Indian Penal Code while it found other respondents guilty of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 Indian Penal Code and awarded life imprisonment under Section 302 and one year's RI for the offence punishable under Section 148 Indian Penal Code and five years' RI for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 149 Indian Penal Code. In the other connected case the trial court convicted the respondent NO.1 under Section 302 simplicit or and awarded life imprisonment and for Section 148 one year's imprisonment was awarded while respondent Nos. 2 to 10 were convicted under Section 302 read with 149 Indian Penal Code and life imprisonment was awarded while for the offence punishable under Section 148 Indian Penal Code one year imprisonment each and under Section 307 Indian Penal Code five years imprisonment each was awarded. 2. The High Court in appeal came to the conclusion that the prosecution case is who lely unbelievable hence allowed the same and acquitted the respondents of the charges framed against them. It is brought to our notice that during the pendency of these appeals respondent Nos.1 and 2 have died, therefore, the appeal against respondent Nos.1 and 2 stands abated. 3. The prosecution case stated briefly is that PW.2 injured witness was a witness in a criminal case against first respondent herein hence on 1.5.1976 at about 6.30 p.m. first respondent along with the other respondents went to the house of PW.2 and threatened him not to give evidence against first respondent in the pending criminal case. 3. The prosecution case stated briefly is that PW.2 injured witness was a witness in a criminal case against first respondent herein hence on 1.5.1976 at about 6.30 p.m. first respondent along with the other respondents went to the house of PW.2 and threatened him not to give evidence against first respondent in the pending criminal case. At that point of time it is also stated that Ist Respondent and respondent No.2 fired gun shot at PW.2 consequent to which he was injured and when PW.4 tried to intervene hence he was also injured. Hearing the gun shot the villagers as also the police constables who were deputed them with the anti - dacoity Squad also came there and made arrangements to take the injured to the police station Derapur which is about 10 kms. away from the place of incident in a tractor. It is the prosecution case that apart from the two injured about 14 villagers and the constables belonging to the anti - dacoity who have also armed proceeded towards the police station. During their travel near a culvert about 5 Kms. from the village these respondents again attacked the convoy shot at them. Consequent to which one Balak Ram who was riding cycle received fatal injuries and died. It is also the case of the prosecution that one of the constables PW.7 also got injured in the gun fire. The further case of the prosecution is that the respondents after causing these injuries went from the place of incident but none of the persons in the group left the said place even to lodge a complaint at the police station which hardly another 5 kms. away till next day morning at about 7.30 a.m. when the complaint was lodged. Prosecution alleges that all the people in the tractor including the armed policemen stayed at the place of incident from about 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. next day morning with one dead body and 3 injured persons. away till next day morning at about 7.30 a.m. when the complaint was lodged. Prosecution alleges that all the people in the tractor including the armed policemen stayed at the place of incident from about 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. next day morning with one dead body and 3 injured persons. The trial court in spite of this came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case hence convicted the respondents as stated above while the High Court noticing the inordinate delay which was not explained by the prosecution in filing the complaint and the artificial nature of the prosecution case came to the conclusion that it is next impossible to believe that for nearly 12 hours after the incidents in spite of the present of armed constables all these people would have stayed at the place of second incident. Thus, disbelieving the prosecution case the High Court allowed the appeal. The Court also noticed the fact that neither tractor nor cycle was recovered by the investigating officer. The High Court in stead of the accepting the prosecution case chose to rely upon the defence version that on the night of1.5.1976 when there was some celebrations going on some dacoits entered the village and there was in discriminating firing consequent to which the deceased died and the others suffered injuries which according to the High Court was a more likely version of incident. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. We find no merit in these appeals and the same fail and are dismissed.