ORDER : P. Venkatarama Reddi and P.P. Naolekar, JJ. Seven accused were charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code and Sections 147 and 148 Indian Penal Code in connection with the murder of one Mohan Lal Khatri in the village of Potlad, Indore district on 4-11-1994 (the day following Diwali) at about 11.00 a.m. The Vlth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, convicted all the seven accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The High Court on appeal by the accused, acquitted all of them. Hence, the State preferred the present appeal. We are informed that the 7th accused Lalji (7th respondent herein) died during the pendency of the appeal. 2. PW 1 Singaram, the brother of the deceased lodged a report purportedly at 14:20 hrs on 4-11-1994 stating that while he was irrigating his fields he heard the cries from his brother Mohan Lal from the nearby field. Mohan Lal was driving the tractor on his field at that time. When he rushed to the spot, he found the seven accused armed with iron rods, spades and axes, assaulting his brother Mohan Lal. Mohan Lal sustained injuries on the head, arms and legs. He also stated that PW 4 and PW 5 who are said to be farm workers also saw the incident. The motive was stated to be a dispute over purchase of the land. He further stated that the dead body was taken by bullock cart to the hospital at Sanwel and by the time they reached the hospital, Mohan Lal was dead. Thereafter, he came to the police station to give the report. 3. The post-mortem report revealed as many as 15 incised injuries, some of which were found on the vital parts. The investigating officer (PW 12) inspected the scene of offence and drew up a rough sketch of the spot and the adjacent fields. The site plan which was got prepared by PW 9 is also on record and it is marked as Ext. P-8. The investigating officer recorded the statements of PWs 1 to 5 either on the same day or on the next day though PW 5 stated that their statements were recorded three days later. The accused were arrested two days later i.e. on 6-11-1994 and pursuant to the alleged disclosure made by them, the weapons used were recovered from the places at which they were concealed. 4. The accused were arrested two days later i.e. on 6-11-1994 and pursuant to the alleged disclosure made by them, the weapons used were recovered from the places at which they were concealed. 4. Five eyewitnesses were examined in support of the prosecution apart from the informant, PW 1. PW 2 and PW 3 are the children of the deceased aged about 12 years and 14 years respectively. PW 4 and PW 5 are the farm workers who are said to be attending to the work at the field of the deceased or the nearby fields. The High Court was not inclined to place reliance on the eyewitnesses' account. The High Court observed that after having gone through their evidence it was satisfied that the testimonies of PWs 1 to 5 did not inspire confidence and they were got up witnesses to support the story which was ex facie untrue. 5. The main thrust of the comments of the High Court was in regard to the place of incident. According to the High Court the incident did not happen in the field of Mohan Lal as per the version of PW 1. Though the High Court is not correct in saying that as per the spot maps, the incident took place at a field far away from the deceased Mohan Lal's field, the fact remains that according to the evidence of the investigating officer and the spot maps prepared by him as well as the evidence of PW 4, the dead body was found in the field of Lalji (Accused 7) from where the bloodstained earth was also collected by the investigating officer. 6. It is also worthy of note that PW 5 asserted in his deposition that the tractor was found at the spot close to the dead body i.e. about 12 ft away and he denied that it was about 68 steps away, as shown in the spot map. How the tractor could remain in the field of Accused 7 where the dead body lay, is not clear. The investigating officer for the first time developed the theory that the deceased was attacked initially on his field and then he was dragged from that field to the field of Lalji i.e. Accused 7 but that was not the case of any of the prosecution witnesses. The investigating officer for the first time developed the theory that the deceased was attacked initially on his field and then he was dragged from that field to the field of Lalji i.e. Accused 7 but that was not the case of any of the prosecution witnesses. That apart, PW 1 states that the fields of the accused persons are not close to the fields of the deceased. If so, how the dead body was found lying at A-7's field is incomprehensible. As regards the spot of incident, the prosecution evidence bristles with contradictions and the High Court rightly pointed out this serious infirmity. 7. The evidence of PW 1 discloses that his field was situated about 3 km away from the field of the deceased. Even if we go by the other version of PW 1 based on the comparative distance from the village, still the inter se distance between the two fields will not be less than halt a kilometre, assuming that the fields lie in the same direction. Thus, his version of hearing the cries and rushing to the spot and then observing the attack is unworthy of credence. His statements implicating the accused are omnibus in nature. 8. Coming to the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 who are the children of the deceased, their names were not mentioned in the report given to the police which formed the basis for the FIR. Having regard to the tenor and context of the report given by PW 1 in which he specifically named two eyewitnesses i.e. PW 4 and PW 5, one would reasonably expect that the names of PWs 2 and 3 as eyewitnesses would have been furnished by him, if in fact they were at the spot. The FIR is conspicuously silent about their presence. PW 4 also at one stage said that PWs 2 and 3 were not there. However, he resiled from that statement a little later. Moreover, as pointed out by the High Court, PW 2 in the course of her examination, initially implicated all the accused but she later on named only three accused, namely, Lalji, Ram Prasad and Makhan. If at all PW 2 was present in the company of her brother and father, the fact that she named at one stage only three accused casts a further doubt on the prosecution case. 9. If at all PW 2 was present in the company of her brother and father, the fact that she named at one stage only three accused casts a further doubt on the prosecution case. 9. Coming to the evidence of PWs 4 and 5, we find material contradictions inter se and with their statements before the police (which were marked) in several material particulars viz. the place where they were working at the crucial time, the nature of work they were doing, in whose company they were and the spot of occurrence. On a perusal of the evidence of PWs 1, 4 and 5, we get a picture of inconsistent versions on material details. The High Court cannot be said to have fallen into error in discarding such evidence especially in the light of the discrepancies between the earliest version of PW 1 and the ultimate version of the prosecution in regard to the scene of offence. 10. We must also observe that the motive for this heinous attack has not been established and the evidence relating to recovery of weapons appears to be doubtful, as pointed out by the High Court. We are unable to hold that the view taken by the High Court is not a reasonably possible view and therefore the reversal of the verdict of acquittal is not warranted. Resultantly the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.