The impugned Government appeal was filed against the order of acquittal passed by IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Mainpuri Sri O. N. Asthana on 31-1-1981. In this appeal three respondents Balak Ram, Mani Ram and Prakash were made respondents. The trial was for the offences under Sections 148, 324/149, 307/149 and 452 I. P. C. 2. The prosecution case as contained in the F. I. R. was that on the preceding night at about 1. 00 a. m. when the victim and his family members including his brother-in-law and Ram Asrey were sleeping in their inside the house and Ram Asrey was sleeping on the roof in a thatch these respondents and Bheekam arrived on the roof. Out of them Balak Ram was armed with a Dhariya, a sharp edged weapon, Mani Ram was armed with a country made pistol and Prakash and Bheekam were armed with Lathis. Two unknown persons also had country made pistol. All these persons climbed on the roof of the informant Jagannath where his son Ram Asrey was asleep inside the thatch. They started assaulting Ram Asrey. His alarm aroused the family members. The informant, father of Ram Asrey, Jagannath, gave a call that he is coming. Hearing his call miscreants jumped into his courtyard. Maniram, out of them, opened fire upon the informant, who was inside a room, injuring him on his chest. The discharged fire also hit fingers of his left arm. Others also started beating him. Their alarm attracted Banshi, Brajwasi, Jiledar, Ram Pat and others to the spot. All of them were burning their torches. The assailants retreated from the spot yelling out "you have procured the conviction of Prakash, today you cannot escape, we will kill you. " The entire incident was witnessed by the informant and other witnesses in the light of a lantern burning inside his room and torch lights of the witnesses. The report was lodged on the same night at about 2. 50 a. m. After the registration of the case both injured, Ram Asrey and Jagannath, were sent for their medical examination. They were medically examined by Dr. Pradeep Kumar, PW 5. He found the following injuries on the person of injured Jagannath: (1) Small multiple lacerated wound, in an area of 8 cm. x 5 cm. On right side of forehead 1 cm. above the right eye brow size is of. 2 x. 2 cm. They were medically examined by Dr. Pradeep Kumar, PW 5. He found the following injuries on the person of injured Jagannath: (1) Small multiple lacerated wound, in an area of 8 cm. x 5 cm. On right side of forehead 1 cm. above the right eye brow size is of. 2 x. 2 cm. Number is six. Advised X-ray of skull and right forehead. (2) L. W. x. 2 x. 2 cm. on left ring finger on the medial side. Bleeding present. There is swelling 1 cm. x. 5 cm. at the tip of left ring finger. Adv. X-ray. (3) L. W. 2 cm. x 2 cm. On medial side of left little finger 1 cm. Above base of finger. Adv X-ray. (4) Contusion 2. 5 cm. x 1 cm. x 12 cm. Above left wrist joint on lateral side Reddish colour. 3. Injury No. 4 was found to have been caused by hard blunt object. Its nature was simple. With regard to injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 X-ray was advised and final opinion was withheld till the X-ray examination. The duration was fresh. 4. Following injuries were found on the person of Ram Asrey: (1) Incised would on Rt. Side of head 5. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x scalp deep 8 cm above Rt. Ear. Margins were clean cut and sharp. Bleeding present. (2) Complains of pain on right heel. 5. X-ray was advised to ascertain the nature of the injury No. 2. It was in the opinion of doctor caused by a sharp edged weapon. Both injury reports are Exts. Ka-8 and Ka-9. X-ray examination report of Jagannath, Ext. Ka-11, indicates presence of two small radio-opaque Metallic density shadow. There was no other injury. There is no X-ray examination report available on the record for the scalp injury of Ram Asrey. 6. The prosecution in support of its case examined Jagannath as PW 1 and Ram Asrey, PW 3. The two injured apart from Brijbasi have been produced as eye-witnesses of the incident. PW 4, Raj Kumar Gupta had conducted the medical examination of these injured. Dr. S. C. Verma, PW 6 conducted the X-ray examination and submitted the report. The report was a written report scribed by Bare Lal, brother-in- law of one of his son. Written report is Ext. Ka-1. The check report is Ext. Ka-2 on the record. PW 4, Raj Kumar Gupta had conducted the medical examination of these injured. Dr. S. C. Verma, PW 6 conducted the X-ray examination and submitted the report. The report was a written report scribed by Bare Lal, brother-in- law of one of his son. Written report is Ext. Ka-1. The check report is Ext. Ka-2 on the record. The constable who prepared the G. D. entry was not examined during trial. It was proved by Raj Kumar Gupta, PW 4. 7. The accused persons denied the prosecution case. Prakash alleged nothing in his defence. Balak Ram also did not say anything in his defence except in response to question No. 12 wherein he stated that Jagannath and Kalicharan got married the son of witness Brijbasi. Maniram is his brother. There was enmity on account of a suit for cancellation of the lease granted to the son of Jagannath by the village Pradhan brought by Maniram. Maniram in his defence stated the same fact. Only these three were tried. 8. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence of the witnesses came to the conclusion that both the injuries were inimical and had no opportunity to identify the miscreants. Source of light in his opinion was highly doubtful. The witnesses did not show their torches to the investigating officer (hereinafter referred to as I. O. ). The presence of any lantern was found equally doubtful by him. Motive was not proved beyond doubt by the prosecution. No witness living in close proximity were produced in evidence by the prosecution. In his opinion it adversely affected the veracity of these two injured witnesses. He was of the opinion that their presence at the spot is also highly doubtful. According to him manner of assault was also highly doubtful. With regard to PW 2, Brijbasi, the finding of the Court was that his testimony is not reliable. His house is away from the place of occurrence. From his evidence it is clear that he did not see anything but has deposed on account of proximity with the injured Jagannath. 9. Learned A. G. A. in this Court claimed that the testimony of two injured witnesses was not rightly rejected by the trial Court. His house is away from the place of occurrence. From his evidence it is clear that he did not see anything but has deposed on account of proximity with the injured Jagannath. 9. Learned A. G. A. in this Court claimed that the testimony of two injured witnesses was not rightly rejected by the trial Court. With regard to Brajbasi PW 2 his contention is that even if his testimony is discarded from consideration, the prosecution will succeed in establishing the case from prompt medical examination of the two injured which occurred during the same night. It lands assurance to their testimony. Therefore, the acquittal cannot be claimed to be justified. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the above submissions made by learned A. G. A. In order to appreciate the submissions of the parties and also evaluate the findings returned by the trial Court as discussed earlier we have to closely examine the testimony of these two injured witnesses. 11. So far as PW 2 Brijbasi is concerned, we hardly have any doubt in the finding returned by the trial Court. From his evidence we find it clearly discernible that by the time he arrived, miscreants were not present there. We have to assess the truthfulness of the prosecution case in the light of the testimony of the two injured witnesses alone. It is to be seen as to how far they are giving out the truthful version of the incident. Whether there is any possibility for false implication of the respondents in the case. Possibility of their identification is also to be equally appreciated. Whether the prosecution succeeded in establishing the motive for this incident also requires re-appreciation. In this light we test the evidence of the injured witnesses. 12. PW 1 Jagannath is the only witness who spoke about the motive. This witness on the motive has given out a version that Prakash had fell his trees so a report was lodged by him. A Sub- Inspector came to hold an enquiry into his allegations. Prakash assaulted him in the presence of the said Sub-Inspector. A case was registered under Section 107/117 Cr. P. C. by the police against Prakash and the Court ordered Prakash to furnish a personal bond and two sureties for a period of one year to maintain peace and tranquillity. This decision came 8-9 years ago. Prakash assaulted him in the presence of the said Sub-Inspector. A case was registered under Section 107/117 Cr. P. C. by the police against Prakash and the Court ordered Prakash to furnish a personal bond and two sureties for a period of one year to maintain peace and tranquillity. This decision came 8-9 years ago. Since then Prakash and his members were nursing grouse against him and his family. The accused were known to him from before being residents of the same village. Maniram and Balak Ram are brothers. Prakash is a Khandani of these persons. He claimed that the incident occurred at about 1. 00 a. m. He was sleeping at the relevant time in a room facing inner countryard with his wife and brother-in-law of one of his son. A burning lantern was hanging in between the cots of his and his wife. Sufficient light was available on the spot from it. Ram Asrey was asleep in a thatch on the roof. His another son and his wife were sleeping in the other room. Both his daughters Brijesh and Surjesh were sleeping in the third room. He was aroused by the alarm raised by Ram Asrey from the roof. Ram Asrey was shouting "father come and save me Balak Ram and Prakash are assaulting. Scrutinising this assertion of his in the light of what he has stated in the F. I. R. we find that no such statement was made by him therein. There he alleged that all the accused started assaulting his son and he gave a call upon which miscreants entered his house and Maniram opened fire on him to kill. He admitted that this statement was made by him for the first time though he tried to state that it was told to the I. O. but it was not in his such statement and he failed to offer any explanation for its omission therein. According to him as soon as he opened northern window of his room, Maniram and Balak Ram entered into his room. Prakash remained stationed outside the room. The other two miscreants were unknown to him and he could not identify any one of them. This clearly indicates that no light was burning inside the room. According to him as soon as he opened northern window of his room, Maniram and Balak Ram entered into his room. Prakash remained stationed outside the room. The other two miscreants were unknown to him and he could not identify any one of them. This clearly indicates that no light was burning inside the room. Even if the lantern was hanging it was put off when he went to sleep otherwise he could have easily given the details of the facial contours of the two unknown miscreants. Exhortation by Bheekam to kill Jagannath was also not alleged in the F. I. R. According to him in trial fire was made by Maniram after Bheekams exhortation. Bheekam gave him a Lathi blow is also not mentioned in the F. I. R. The F. I. R. contained that the remaining accused also started assaulting him. Their alarm attracted the witnesses from the vicinity as named by him above. These witnesses were flashing their troches. At the arrival of the witnesses the miscreants ran out of his house. He claimed that the report of the incident was lodged by him. It was scribed by Bare Lal. We have examained written report claimed to have been written by Bare Lal but to our astonishment we do find mention of the name of Bare Lal as scribe in this written report, Ex. Ka-1. Thus, the fact that Bare Lal was the scribe of the F. I. R. is not borne out from the evidence of this witness. Who was the scribe of this report, therefore, is a mystery. This also throws into dis-array the presence of Bare Lal at the relevant time though he was not examined in the trial. The report according to him was transcribed at his house. With the report he, Ram Asrey, Ram Autar, his other son and Jiledar went to the police station. He claimed that his signature on the register were obtained by the Head Moharrir there. He was sent for his medical examination. Thus, the manner of assault from the narration made by this witness in the Court is in conflict with the F. I. R. and his Section 161 Cr. P. C. statement. If he was assaulted by as many as 5 persons with their respective weapons, he would not have suffered only 4 injuries in all, three fire-arm injuries and one contusion. P. C. statement. If he was assaulted by as many as 5 persons with their respective weapons, he would not have suffered only 4 injuries in all, three fire-arm injuries and one contusion. According to him the shot was fired from close proximity. Three of the miscreants including Maniram entered his room. The length and width of the room as described by him in his cross-examination is 9 hand in length and 8-9 Feet wide. The height of the roof according to his admission was only 6-7 Feet. Thus, a Lathi cannot be plied inside his room. He had two injuries on the left fingers, middle and ring finger. Rest of the injuries were found on the right side of forehead. There was no injury upon his face. Therefore, the participation of 5 persons in his assault is a wholly doubtful circumstance. He further admitted that in his report what was written by Bare Lal, he did not know. As soon as Bare Lal scribed the report, he signed it and proceeded for the police station meaning thereby it was not read by him or read over to him. This statement is made by him in order to wriggle out from variations between his statement and the report. He was brought by the Inspector in his jeep from the hospital to his village. His injuries ultimately were found simple. The injuries of Ram Asrey were also found simple as no X-ray report was brought on record. He probably was not subjected to any X-ray examination. In view of these facts, his assertion that both Ram Autar and he remained admitted in the hospital for 8-9 days is falsified completely. His statement was not recorded by the Sub-Inspector at the police station or when he picked him from the hospital before bringing him back to his village. It was not even recorded in the village when he arrived with the Police Inspector there at about 4. 00 a. m. or 5. 00 a. m. It w 13. The motive has not been established from his testimony. His son did not state a word about the motive. According to him Prakash furnished bail bonds and surety bonds under Section 107/117 Cr. P. C. 8-9 years ago. It is unworthy that in between 8-9 years nothing transpired between them if really the accused nursed any grudge. The motive has not been established from his testimony. His son did not state a word about the motive. According to him Prakash furnished bail bonds and surety bonds under Section 107/117 Cr. P. C. 8-9 years ago. It is unworthy that in between 8-9 years nothing transpired between them if really the accused nursed any grudge. This witness claimed that Prakash had to remain in jail in this connection of the whole period but this fact is totally false as no one used to be sent to jail in cases under Section 107/117 Cr. P. C. Ordinarily. It happens only when any one fails to give bonds. Admittedly he was directed to furnish bonds which he did. This witness claimed that after being released from jail Prakash had quarrelled with him on many occasions. On 2-3 occasions he also beat him but no report of Maarpit was ever lodged by him. This is not trustworthy for the reason that when his trees were cut by Prakash he lodged a report. If he would have been beaten by Prakash on 2-3 occasions he could not have remained silent. A report positively would have been lodged by him. Thus, his statement that on a number of occasions altercation and on 2-3 occasions assault on him was made by Prakash-respondent cannot be accepted by this Court. He did not know that on whose Rikshaw he had gone to the hospital. He could not name him though he admitted that the Rikshaw puller was living in his own village. No independent witness was nominated by him in the incident. He had enmity with Maniram. It is admitted to him that Maniram was a witness in 2-3 cases against him. It was Maniram who had filed a suit for cancellation of the lease granted to his son. Ram Autar had a cut injury. Blood was to ooze out from that injury. He claimed that his blood was soaked by his clothes but so far as his injury on scalp is concerned, according to him blood from it fell to the ground in the room itself and also outside at the Chabutara. This too in our opinion is an ingenuity of the witnesses. He admitted that he did not inform the I. O. that report was transcribed by Bare Lal. This too in our opinion is an ingenuity of the witnesses. He admitted that he did not inform the I. O. that report was transcribed by Bare Lal. The explanation given by him is that I. O. did not ask any question from him about it. He did not state that the miscreants threw Ram Autar into inner courtyard who fell upon Puval which was stacked therein and miscreants also jumped down taking resort to that Puval into inner courtyard. When he opened the door he found the accused person in his inner courtyard. Thus critical analysis of this witness as we have already discussed makes it abundantly clear that he was not come out clean breast. He was more guided by feeling of vengeance against the respondents with whom allegedly he was on inimical terms. How the incident occurred is not clear from his statement. His son sleeping on the roof is also not borne out from the evidence. The month of incident was January. The days were too cold and the dense fog was likely to be there. It is admitted to S. I. PW 4 and this witness as well that all the accused persons were arrested from their house before this witness was brought to his village. This is a circumstance which makes it clear that had they been accused in the incident, probability of their presence in their house at the early hours of the morning would not have been there. We do not find his testimony reliable. It clearly shows their innocence. 14. So far as PW 2, Brijbasi is concerned we fully agree with the finding of the trial Court for the reason that he was attracted to the spot as per his own statement by the gun shot report and the alarm. He came with a burning torch in his hand towards the spot. As per his admission before his arrival to the spot Chheda, Kripal and Rampat had already reached there. No one from amongst these witnesses was examined in trial. His house from the house of Jagannath is 5-6 houses away. The distance according to him is 20-25 steps. Though from the description of houses of those that intervene in between him and Jagannath, it appears to be more than 20-25 paces. His brother was an accused in the murder case of Ravi Seth. His house from the house of Jagannath is 5-6 houses away. The distance according to him is 20-25 steps. Though from the description of houses of those that intervene in between him and Jagannath, it appears to be more than 20-25 paces. His brother was an accused in the murder case of Ravi Seth. Samadhi of Jagannath Kalicharan was also an accused in that murder. Munna another accused is still in jail. Admittedly Kalicharan used to visit the house of Jagannath. Though he denied that Kalicharan was instrumental in the marriage of his son. The denial seems to be purposive to us. When he arrived at the scene of occurrence, main door of the house of Jagannath and the Western door both were open. The site-plan shows that the house of Jagannath was facing South. When he entered into the house of Jagannath, his wife, the daughters and both the sons were present. No one else was there. Meaning thereby that he denies presence of Bara Lal. The neighbours entered the house alongwith him. Jagannath was sitting on his cot with his head down. In that Kothari he saw only two cots. It also establishes beyond doubt that Bare Lal was not present there. He found blood outside the door near the outer Chabutara. He did not find any Tikali, Chharra Kartoos embedded in the door though in the next breath he claimed that at 6. 00-6. 30 a. m. when he again visited the house of Jagannath, he found pellet embedded in his door. He is corroborating Jagannath that he saw him a second time at 9. 00 a. m. He denied any accused were arrested in the early hours of the morning on the next day itself. According to him he was 15-20 steps in the North from the house of Jagannath when his eyes fell upon the miscreants but we find that he did not inform the S. I. that he had identified the miscreants in his torch light. Thus, the trial Court was right in discarding him and we do not hold any different opinion. 15. Taking up the evidence of Ram Asrey PW 3 his case is that on the roof when the miscreants arrived there they caught hold of him. He was assaulted too by the accused who were armed with Lathis, one with Dhariya and three with Kattas. 15. Taking up the evidence of Ram Asrey PW 3 his case is that on the roof when the miscreants arrived there they caught hold of him. He was assaulted too by the accused who were armed with Lathis, one with Dhariya and three with Kattas. He gave an alarm upon which his father declared he is coming. The miscreants then pushed him from the roof. He fell upon the Puval in the inner courtyard. Miscreants later on jumped down from the roof. According to him. Balak, Maniram, Prakash and Bheekam entered his fathers room but he is contradicted by Jagannath PW 1 who stated that Prakash stood outside his room. He did not come in. This witness also claimed that he also went inside the room. According to him Bheekam struck a Lathi blow first but from the evidence of PW 1 we find that shooting was made first on him and Lathi was struck by Bheekam later on. He claimed that he saved his father, then Prakash exhorted his companions to kill. Balak Ram thereafter struck a Dhariya blow upon his head. When the miscreants were coming out of his northern door, his father tried to catch hold of them. Maniram opened fire on him at this stage which struck his fingers and scalp. He had suffered solitary incised injury upon his scalp. Thus, his statement does not find corroboration from the medical examination report. His version hence is abnormal and in contrast to the medical evidence. He had categorically stated that the witnesses from outside came to his house after the departure of the culprits. They were armed with Lathis and torches. They informed these witnesses about the incident. He also claimed that Bare Lal was present. He is scribe of the report. We have already discussed while discussing the evidence of PW 1, his presence at the relevant hour was falsely alleged. The evidence does not support his presence there. According to him he was never examined by the I. O. under Section 161 Cr. P. C. then stated that the I. O. recorded his statement on the next day. He denied that the report was scribed by Ram Asrey and not Bare Lal. We have already discussed that the report could not be scribed by Bare Lal because he was not present in the house at all. P. C. then stated that the I. O. recorded his statement on the next day. He denied that the report was scribed by Ram Asrey and not Bare Lal. We have already discussed that the report could not be scribed by Bare Lal because he was not present in the house at all. His in-laws house and Bare Lals in-laws house is in the same village. His brother-in-law Munna Lal was married to his sister about 5-6 months ago. It would be relevant to point out that these persons are accused in a 302 I. P. C. case. Munna Lal and Kalicharan were accused in the murder case of Ravi Seth as admitted by PW 1 and Maniram was a witness in that case. He denied that Munna Lal is absconding. He had brought a girl from Punjab for which he was prosecuted was also denied. He denied that his sister was never married to Munna Lal. He denied that his brother had contacts with the police being a driver of A. D. M. He admitted that Maniram filed a suit for cancellation of the Patta (lease-deed) against his brother and Ravi Seth was doing pairvi on behalf of Maniram in that case. He also failed to give out the name of the Rikshaw puller. According to him at that time when they reached the police station no Sub-Inspector was there. They sat for about half an hour at the police station. Still no Sub- Inspector arrived there. Then they were sent to the hospital. According to him he was admitted in the hospital for 4-5 days. It is contrary to his fathers statement that they remained in hospital for 8-9 days. He has made typical admission that on the day of report, a Sub-Inspector took him to the hospital and after his medical examination and first aid he and his father were brought to their house. They started from the hospital at about 5-6 a. m. alongwith Sub-Inspector. On reaching the home he went to evacuate. On his return he did not find his father and the police there. He could not tell that the I. O. had seen the Pual or not. He admitted that he arrived in the morning at his house. Bare Lal was not there. He did not know where had he gone. His brother Ram Autar was also not there. On his return he did not find his father and the police there. He could not tell that the I. O. had seen the Pual or not. He admitted that he arrived in the morning at his house. Bare Lal was not there. He did not know where had he gone. His brother Ram Autar was also not there. He again went to the hospital in the morning at about 8. 00-9. 00 a. m. by a Rikshaw. Even the name of this Rikshaw puller was also not known to him. Sub-Inspector met him in the hospital when he reached there. He had come out with a new version that he was beaten by the accused with fists and kicks in the thatch. He reminded there for 5 minutes when he was assaulted by the miscreants there. All the miscreants gave him fist and kick blows. He did not tell it to the I. O. that he was sleeping in the thatch. He failed to give any cogent reason for this omission. He also stated that he did not tell the I. O. That he was awakened by the sound of the foot movement. He denied that he was caught by the Bheekam and all of them beat him. He claimed that he did not give any such statement to the I. O. When his statement was read over to him he asserted that he cannot offer any explanation as to why the Sub-Inspector had written the above facts. He had not told the I. O. that he was pushed down in the courtyard by the miscreants and he entered into the room where his father was. His explanation is that he did not remember to tell the I. O. this fact. The fact that Bare Lal gave a blow of Lathi was not told to I. O. According to him I. O. did not meet him, therefore, he did not disclose all these to him. It was not written in his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. that the fire made by Maniram struck his father upon his head. He was unable to give any reason why these facts are not transcribed by the Sub- Inspector in his 161 Cr. P. C. statement. In his statement arrival of Brijbasi, Banshi Lal and Ziledar with torches and Dandas was also not mentioned. P. C. that the fire made by Maniram struck his father upon his head. He was unable to give any reason why these facts are not transcribed by the Sub- Inspector in his 161 Cr. P. C. statement. In his statement arrival of Brijbasi, Banshi Lal and Ziledar with torches and Dandas was also not mentioned. From the entire discussion made above of his statement, there cannot be any doubt that this witness had improved grossly the case to rope in as many as 6 persons. His testimony does not inspire confidence. It is in contrast completely to the medical evidence, therefore, the manner of assault narrated by the two witnesses being in contrast with their medical examination report cannot be relied upon. The incident apparently has taken place in some other manner. Presence of unknown miscreants clearly means that it was probably a case of robbery or theft in which they suffered injuries. These witnesses though they are injured, therefore, are not reliable. Their testimonies, therefore, cannot be accepted by this Court. 16. The order of acquittal for the reasons discussed above, therefore, cannot be disturbed in any manner by us. Though we have given some different reasons for upholding the acquittal order but by and large some of the reasons like motive, presence of light itself and manner of assault were also the reasons assigned by the trial Court for the acquittal. 17. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this Government appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .