JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 2.4.1985 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra Camp Barmer in Sessions Case No. 55/83 by which he acquitted the accused-respondents-Swaroop Singh, Sagat Singh, Jugat Singh, Balwant Singh, Bhoor Singh, Sawai Singh and Nakla Ram of the charges for the offence under sections 147, 302/149 and 323 Indian Penal Code and by the same judgment and order of acquittal, he also acquitted four more accused persons, namely, Amb Singh, Til Singh, Agar Singh and Mangal Singh of the charge for the offence under section 120B Indian Penal Code. 2. It arises in the following circumstances : On 20.7.1983 at about 5.30 p.m., PW-11 Sujan Singh lodged an oral report before PW-15 Bhanwarnek Mohd. Khan, who was at that time SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Barmer stating inter alia that on that day at about 3.00 p.m., he was lying down in the Jhumpa of PW-1 Bhoor Singh and Girdhari Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was resting just near.to his bed. It was further stated by PW-11 Sujan Singh that PW-13 Parvati, wife of the deceased, was also present in that jumpha alongwith PW-12 Agar Singh. It was further stated by PW-11 Sujan Singh that suddenly he saw Karan Singh (absconder accused) alongwith the present accused-respondents in the jumpha and at that time, absconder accused-.Karan Singh was armed with gun, the accused-respondent-Jugat Singh was armed with sword, the accused-respondent-Bhoor Singh was having kulhari in his hand, the accused-respondent-Balwant Singh was armed with dhariya and the rest accused persons were armed with lathies. It was further stated by PW-11 Sujan Singh that seeing the accused persons, he and PW-12 Agar Singh stood up and asked what was the matter and upon this, the absconder accused-Karan Singh told him and others to keep away as he was going to shoot deceased and in the meantime, deceased woke up and rushed into the kotri. It was further stated by PW-11 Sujan Singh that seeing the accused persons, he and PW-12 Agar Singh stood up and asked what was the matter and upon this, the absconder accused-Karan Singh told him and others to keep away as he was going to shoot deceased and in the meantime, deceased woke up and rushed into the kotri. It was further stated by PW-11 Sujan Singh that the absconder accused- Karan Singh pushed him and the accused-respondents Jugat Singh, Swaroop Singh and Balwant Singh caughthold him and the accused- respondents-Bhoor Singh and Sawai Singh caughthold PW-12 Agar Singh and the accused-respondents-Sagat Singh and Nakla Ram pushed PW-13 Parvati and thereafter, absconder accused-Karan Singh made fire with his gun towards deceased, as a result of which, he died on the spot. It was further stated by PW- 11 Sujan Singh that he, PW-13 Parvati and PW-12 Agar Singh shouted for help and upon this, PW-1 Bhoor Singh, who was working in the nearby field, came there and thereafter, all the accused persons ran away from-the scene. It was further stated by PW-11 Sujan Singh that deceased and absconder accused-Karan Singh had old family dispute and thus, they were inimical to each other. The said qral report of PW-11 Sujan Singh was reduced into writing by PW-15,Bhanwarnek Mohd. Khan in the Rojnamcha Ex.P/30-A and on the basis of that Rojnamcha Ex.P/30-A, regular FIR Ex.P/31 was chalked out and investigation was started. During investigation, site plan Ex.P/2 was got prepared by PW-15 Bhanwarnek Mohd. Khan and the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted by PW-14 Dr. G.K. Vyas and the post-mortem report is Ex.P/32 where it was opined that the cause of death of the deceased was sudden haemorrhage and shock due to firearm injury tearing the femoral vessels. PW-13 Parvati was also got medically examined by PW-14 Dr. G.K. Vyas and her injury report is Ex.P/33, which shows that she received three simple injuries. The accused-respondents-Swaroop Singh, Sagat Singh, Jugat Singh, Balwant Singh, Bhoor Singh, Sawai Singh and Nakla Ram were got arrested on 13.8.1983 through arrest memos Ex.P/12, Ex.P/13, Ex.P/14, Ex.P/15, Ex.P/16, Ex.P/17 and Ex.P/18 respectively. Thereafter, on the information dated 14.8.1983 Ex.P/23 of accused-Swaroop Singh, a lathi was got recovered through fard Ex.P/4 in presence of two motbir witnesses, namely, PW10 Kump Singh and PW-4 Narsingharam. Thereafter, on the information dated 14.8.1983 Ex.P/23 of accused-Swaroop Singh, a lathi was got recovered through fard Ex.P/4 in presence of two motbir witnesses, namely, PW10 Kump Singh and PW-4 Narsingharam. On the information dated 14.8.1983 Ex.P/24 of accused- Sagat Singh, a lathi was got recovered through fard Ex.P/5 in presence of two motbir witnesses, namely, PW-10 Kump Singh and PW-4 Narsingharam. On the information dated 14.8.1983 Ex.P/25 of accused- Jugat Singh, a sword was got recovered through fard Ex.P/6 in presence of two motbir witnesses, namely, PW-10 Kump Singh and PW-4 Narsingharam. On the information dated 14.8.1983 Ex.P/26 of accused- Balwant Singh, a dhariya was got recovered through fard Ex.P/7 in presence of two motbir witnesses, namely, PW-10 Kump Singh and PW- 4 Narsingharam. On the information dated 14.8.1983 Ex.P/27 of accused- Bhoor Singh, a kulhari was got recovered through fard Ex.P/8 in presence of two motbir witnesses, namely, PW-10 Kump Singh and PW-4 Narsingharam. On the information dated 14.8.1983 Ex.P/28 of accused- Sawai Singh, a lathi was got recovered through fard Ex.P/9 in presence of two motbir witnesses, namely, PW-10 Kump Singh and PW-4 Narsingharam. On the information dated 14.8.1983 Ex.P/29 of accused- Nakla Ram, a lathi was got recovered through fard Ex.P/10 in presence of two motbir witnesses,namely, PW-10 Kump Singh and PW- 4 Narasingharam. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against 11 accused persons in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer and in that challan, it was also stated by the police that the accused-Karan Singh was absconding, therefore, challan under section 299 Criminal Procedure Code was filed against him. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 5.11.1984, the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra framed the charges for the offence under sections 147, 302/149 and 323 Indian Penal Code against the accused-respondents-Swaroop Singh, Sagat Singh, Jugat Singh, Balwant Singh, Bhoor Singh, Sawai Singh and Nakla Ram and for the offence under section 120B Indian Penal Code against four more accused persons, namely, Amb Singh, Til Singh, Agar Singh and Mangal Singh. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons and they denied the charges and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited several documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code were recorded. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons and they denied the charges and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited several documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code were recorded. In defence, three witnesses were produced and many documents were got exhibited by the accused persons. After conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra through impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 2.4.1985 acquitted all the 11 accused persons of all the charges framed against them holding inter alia : (i) That no case at all was found proved against the accused persons, namely, Amb Singh, Til Singh, Agar Singh and Mangal Singh for the offence under section 120B Indian Penal Code and further, they were falsely implicated by the complainant party. (ii) That the accused-respondents were also acquitted of the charge for the offence under section 323 Indian Penal Code as it was not found proved by the learned trial Judge as nobody had stated who caused injury to PW-13 Parvati, wife of the deceased. (iii) That there was a long standing enmity between the deceased and the absconder accused-Karan Singh. (iv) That the so-called eye-witnesses, namely, PW-1 Bhoor Singh, PW-11 Sujan Singh, PW-12 Agar Singh and PW-13 Parvati appears to be interested witnesses and therefore, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that their evidence should be scrutinised and examined cautiously. (v) That as per the prosecution case, the accused- respondents were armed with lathies, dhariya and sword etc., but it was found by the learned trial Judge that they had not caused any injury on the body of the deceased. Therefore, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that possibility of falsely implicating the accused-respondents cannot be ruled out. (vi) That from perusing the defence documents Ex.D/5, Ex.D/6, Ex.D/7, Ex.D/8, Ex.D/9 and Ex.D/11, it was found by the learned trial Judge that main witness PW-11 Sujan Singh was eye- witness in another cases against the accused-respondents and therefore, enmity between the accused-respondents and PW-11 Sujan Singh was very well established. (vii) That presence of PW-11 Sujan Singh at the place of occurrence was found doubtful. (vii) That presence of PW-11 Sujan Singh at the place of occurrence was found doubtful. (viii) That no reliance was placed by the learned trial Judge on the statements of PW-1 Bhoor Singh, PW-11 Sujan Singh, PW-12 Agar Singh and PW-13 Parvati so far as they relate to the accused-respondents. (ix) That the prosecution has failed to prove formation of unlawful assembly by the accused-respondents. Thus, after discussing the entire evidence available on record, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges for the offence under sections 147, 302/149 and 323 Indian Penal Code against the accused-respondents and hence, he acquitted the accused-respondents of all the charges framed against them. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 2.4.1985 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 3. It maybe stated here that initially, this appeal was filed by the State of Rajasthan against all the 11 accused persons, but this Court vide order dated 10.12.1985 admitted this appeal against seven accused-respondents and thus, in this State appeal, the impugned judgment and ' order of acquittal' dated 2.4.1985 is being considered against seven accused-respondents. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has challenged the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 2.4.1985 on various grounds and the main grounds are a , follows': (i) That the learned trial Judge has erred in disbelieving the statements of the eye-witnesses, namely, PW-11 Sujan Singh, PW-1 Bhoor Singh, PW-12 Agar Singh and PW-13 Parvati. (ii) That deceased died because of fire arm injury is very well established from the statement of PW-14 Dr. G.K. Vyas and further, the presence of accused-respondents at the place of occurrence is well established from the evidence available on record. (iii) That the evidence available on record clearly establishes the charges for the offence under sections 147, 302/149 and 323 Indian Penal Code against the accused-respondents and thus, they were wrongly acquitted of these charges by the learned trial Judge. Hence, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 2.4.1985 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra be set aside and the accused-respondents be convicted and sentenced for the offence under sections 147, 302/149 and 323.Indian Penal Code. 5. Hence, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 2.4.1985 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra be set aside and the accused-respondents be convicted and sentenced for the offence under sections 147, 302/149 and 323.Indian Penal Code. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondents has submitted that the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are based on correct appreciation of evidence and furthermore, findings of acquittal can be interfered with only when the same are perverse, but in the present case, the findings of acquittal cannot be said to be perverse or based on no material or evidence. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge and this State appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused-respondents and gone through the record of the case. 7. Before proceeding further, first medical evidence of this case has to be seen. 8. The post-mortem report of the deceased is Ex.P/32 and for proving the same, the prosecution has produced PW-14 Dr. G.K. Vyas. 9. PW-14 Dr. G.K. Vyas, in his statement recorded in Court has stated that on 21.7.1983 he was Medical Jurist in Government Hospital, Barmer and on that day at about 8.30 a.m. he conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased and found a wound of the size 3 3/4 x 3 1/2" on the It. thigh of the deceased and that was caused by firearm. He opined that the cause of death of the deceased was sudden haemorrhage and shock due to firearm injury tearing the femoral vessels. He has proved the post-mortem report Ex.P/32. 10. Thus, from the statement of PW-14 Dr. G.K. Vyas, it is very much clear that the deceased died because of sudden haemorrhage and shock due to firearm injury tearing the femoral vessels and thus, the death of the deceased may be classified as homicidal one. 11. The injury report of PW-13 Parvati is Ex.P/33, which shows that she received three simple injuries. 12. G.K. Vyas, it is very much clear that the deceased died because of sudden haemorrhage and shock due to firearm injury tearing the femoral vessels and thus, the death of the deceased may be classified as homicidal one. 11. The injury report of PW-13 Parvati is Ex.P/33, which shows that she received three simple injuries. 12. Before proceeding further, it maybe stated here that there is no dispute on the point that deceased died because of firearm injury and as per the case of the prosecution, that fire arm injury was caused by absconder accused-Karan Singh and that accused-Karan Singh is still absconding and that is why, challan under section 299 Criminal Procedure Code was filed against him. 13. There is also no dispute on the point that no doubt as per prosecution case, though the accused-respondents were armed with lathies, sword, kulhari, dhariya etc., but they did not cause any injury to the deceased and thus, it can be held that deceased did not receive any injury from the accused-respondents and when this being the position, the possibility that the accused-respondents might be simply spectators on the scene of occurrence and not participators cannot be ruled out. 14. There is also no dispute on the point that there was old enmity between the absconder accused-Karan Singh and deceased and they were inimical to each other and that fact is very well established from the oral report Ex.P/30-A lodged by PW-11 Sujan Singh as well as from the defence documents.Apart from the enmity between deceased and the absconder accused-Karan Singh, enmity between the accused-respondents and PW-11 Sujan Singh, who was author of the oral report Ex.P/30-A, is well established and therefore, because of this fact, the possibility that PW-11 Sujan Singh would have falsely implicated the accused- respondents cannot be ruled out. 15. There is also no dispute on the point that no doubt witnesses, namely, PW-1 Bhoor Singh, PW-11 Sujan Singh, PW-12 Agar Singh and PW-13 Parvati state that accused-respondents were also present at the place of occurrence, but none of them had caused any injury on the body of the deceased. 16. Keeping the above facts in mind, it is to be seen whether the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge against the accused-respondents are correct or not. 17. 16. Keeping the above facts in mind, it is to be seen whether the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge against the accused-respondents are correct or not. 17. Before proceeding further, something should be said about the scope of interference by the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. 18. In Molu v. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 2499 : 1976 Cr. L.R. (SC) 387 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the High Court should be alive to the following propositions regarding interference in an appeal against an order of acquittal: i) the slowness of the Appellate Court to disturb a finding of fact; (ii) the non-interference with the order of acquittal where it is indeed only a case of taking a view different from the one taken by the High Court. 19. It is well settled that if two views of the evidence are reasonably possible one favouring acquittal and the other conviction, the High Court should not reverse the order of acquittal and for that, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhan Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1979 SC 1782 , Dinanath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1980 SC 1199 : 1980 Cr. L.R. (SC) 726 and Tara Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 950 : 1980 Cr. L.R. (SC) 567 may be referred to. 20. It may be stated here that in appeal against an order of acquittal, the powers of the High Court are not different from its powers in an ordinary appeal against conviction. The additional burden which is placed on the High Court is that it has to consider each of the grounds which had prompted the trial Court to pass the order of acquittal and to record its own reason for not agreeing with the trial Court. In this respect, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Savant Majagavi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1997 SC 3255 : 1997 Cr. L.R. (SC) 594 , Hassan Ahmad Mai Ishav v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 437 : 1980 Cr. L.R. (SC) 77 and Ram Chander v. State of Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 817 : 1983 Cr. L.R. (SC) 335 may be referred to. 21. L.R. (SC) 594 , Hassan Ahmad Mai Ishav v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 437 : 1980 Cr. L.R. (SC) 77 and Ram Chander v. State of Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 817 : 1983 Cr. L.R. (SC) 335 may be referred to. 21. Although in an appeal from an order of acquittal the powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (i) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (ii) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at the trial; (iii) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (iv) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. Where two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the evidence on record the High Court should as a matter of judicial caution, refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the Court below. In other words, if the main grounds on which the Court below has based its order acquitting the accused, are reasonable and plausible and cannot be entirely and effectively dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the acquittal. In this respect, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 135 may be referred to. 22. It is well settled that in appeal against acquittal the High Court is entitled to reappreciate the evidence if it is found that the view taken by acquitting Court was not a possible view or that it was a perverse or infirm or palpably erroneous view. For that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harichand v. State of Delhi, AIR 1996 SC 1477 : 1996 Cr. L.R. (SC) 185 may be referred to. 23. For that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harichand v. State of Delhi, AIR 1996 SC 1477 : 1996 Cr. L.R. (SC) 185 may be referred to. 23. Thus, the principles governing and regulating the hearing of appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, as set out in innumerable cases, may be summarised in the following manner : (1) That in an appeal against an order of acquittal, the High Court possesses all the powers and nothing less than the powers it possesses while hearing an appeal against an order of conviction. (2) That the High Court has the power to reconsider the whole issue, reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion and findings in place of the findings recorded by trial Court, if the said findings are against the weight of the evidence on record, or in other words, perverse. (3) That before reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to consider each ground on which the order of acquittal was based and to record its own reasons for not accepting those grounds not subscribing to the view expressed by the trial Court that the accused is entitled to acquittal. (4) That in reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to keep in view the fact that the presumption of innocence is still available in favour of the accused and the same stands fortified and strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial Court. (5) That if the High Court, on a fresh scrutiny and reappraisal of the evidence and other material on record, is of the opinion that there is another view which can be reasonably taken, then the view which favours the accused should be adopted. (6) That the High Court has also to keep in mind that the trial Court had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and observing their conduct in the Court, especially in the witness box. (7) That the High Court has also to keep in mind that even at that stage, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such as a reasonable person would honestly and conscientiously entertain as to the guilt of the accused. 24. (7) That the High Court has also to keep in mind that even at that stage, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such as a reasonable person would honestly and conscientiously entertain as to the guilt of the accused. 24. Keeping in mind the above principles, if the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are examined, it does not appear that they are perverse or based on no material or evidence. It cannot be said that the approach of the learned Sessions Judge in acquitting the accused-respondents was manifestly erroneous and the conclusions were wholly perverse. The main grounds, on the basis of which, the learned Sessions Judge has passed the order of acquittal of the accused-respondents, appear to be reasonable and plausible, if they are examined in broad perspective looking to the evidence available on record including the defence version. 25. Apart from this, the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has not received general acceptance in different jurisdictions in India and since in this case, the main accused appears to be Karan Singh (absconder), who is not before us, therefore, the statements of PW-1 Bhoor Singh, PW-11 Sujan Singh, PW-12 Agar Singh and PW-13 Parvati might be true so far as that absconder accused-Karan Singh, but it is not necessary that the statements of these witnesses be accepted against the present accused-respondents. Therefore, the findings of the learned trial Judge that the evidence of these witnesses was not reliable so far as the present accused-respondents were concerned, do not appear to be suffering from basic infirmity and illegality. 26. So far as the findings of the learned trial Judge that there was no unlawful assembly formed by the accused-respondents are concerned, the same also cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous one. 27. It is well settled that mere presence of persons does not make them members of unlawful assembly. For that two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1) Baladin and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 181 and (2) Bishambar Bhagat and Ors. v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 2381 may be referred to. 28. Before recording conviction with the aid of Section 149 Indian Penal Code, act done by each of the accused must be shown to have been committed to accomplish common object. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 181 and (2) Bishambar Bhagat and Ors. v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 2381 may be referred to. 28. Before recording conviction with the aid of Section 149 Indian Penal Code, act done by each of the accused must be shown to have been committed to accomplish common object. For that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allauddin Mian and Ann v. State of Bihar, AIR 1989 SC 1456 may be seen. Thus, if there is no participation, then no liability can be fastened. 29. For the purpose of application of Section 149, the prosecution has to prove the presence and participation of each of the accused in unlawful assembly, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nallamsetty Yanadaiah and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 1175 . 30. It may be stated here that in the present case, from the evidence on record, it appears that there is enmity between the accused party and the complainant party. In a case where there is enmity between two factions, then there is a tendency on the part of the aggrieved victim to give an exaggerated version and to rope in even innocent member of opposite faction in a criminal case. Therefore, duty is cast on the Court to sift the evidence carefully and convict only those persons against whom prosecution witnesses can be safely relied upon without raising any element of doubt. 31. In our considered opinion, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, just stated above, the findings of the learned trial Judge that Section 149 Indian Penal Code was not applicable in the present case cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse one as no doubt the accused-respondents were present at the place of occurrence, but they did not take part in the alleged incident and did not cause any injury on the body of the deceased and therefore, participation of the accused-respondents was missing in the present case and when this being the position, it cannot be said that they formed unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to murder deceased. 32. 32. Apart from the above, looking to the facts that there was old enmity between the accused party and the complainant party and that though the accused-respondents were present at the scene and were armed with deadly weapons, but they did not cause any injury on the body of the deceased, it can reasonably be inferred that the possibility that the accused-respondents were falsely implicated cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, since the accused- respondents did not cause any injury to the deceased, therefore, the statements of the prosecution witnesses on the point that the accused-respondents were armed with deadly weapons have also become doubtful. 33. Thus, if the learned trial Judge had not placed reliance on the statements of witnesses PW-1 Bhoor Singh, PW-11 Sujan Singh, PW-12 Agar Singh and PW-13 Parvati against the present accused- respondents, keeping in mind the two points (i) that the possibility of implicating the accused-respondents falsely cannot be ruled out and (ii) that no injury was caused to the deceased by the accused-respondents, he has committed no illegality in doing 34. Apart from the above, the recovery at the instance of accused-respondents also appears to be doubtful because both the motbir witnesses, namely, PW-10 Kump Singh and PW-4 Narsingha Ram do not support the case of the prosecution on point of recovery. This fact further casts doubt on the veracity of the prosecution witnesses on the point that to falsely implicate the accused-respondents, they have stated that the accused-respondents were armed with weapons. 35. For the reasons stated above, all the submissions raised by the learned Public Prosecutor stand rejected and no interference is called for with the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge against the present accused-respondents through impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 2.4.1985 and this state appeal is liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is dismissed after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 2.4.1985 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra.The trial Court is directed that record of this case be not weeded out as the main accused-Karan Singh is still absconding. JAppeal dismissed. *******