JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.5.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, whereby the accused-appellants (hereafter referred to as the accused persons) have been convicted and sentenced as under: Sections under which convicted Sentence imposed Section 307, IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for six months. Section 325, IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for six months. Section 148, IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. Sections 147 & 323, IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count. Section 506, IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Case of the prosecution briefly stated is that Durga Singh (PW-5) on 12.5,1993 lodged the FIR Ext. PW 5/A alleging therein that he is resident of village Kamsari. His maternal grandfatner had given some land to his mother Khel Dassi (PW-8) in village Saroh adjacent to the land of Govind Ram who also inherited that land from his maternal grandfather. Said Govind Ram sold the land to accused Hari Chand 8-10 years before the lodging of the FIR. Accused Pingla wife of accused Hari Chand had stacked stones extracted from the land purchased by her husband from said Govind Ram on the adjoining land of PW-8. The matter was reported to Bodh Raj, Panch of the Gram Panchayat, who advised PW-5 to verify the position regarding the land from the revenue records and also assured that he would discuss the matter with accused Hari Chand. On 12.5.1993 at about 6 a.m., PW-5, PW-8 alongwith Kamla Devi and Bimla Devi (PW-10) took cow-dung to the land belonging to PW-8. As soon as they kept their Kiltas in which they were carrying the cow-dung on the land., the accused persons armed with sticks entered into the land and proclaimed that it belonged to them and the complainant party had no right, title and interest thereon and, thus, prevented Durga Singh etc. from doing their work on the said land. The accused persons gave blows with the sticks, which they were carrying to PW-5, PW-8 and PW-10 who raised hue and cry on hearing which brothers of PW-5, namely, Amar Chand (PW-6), Room Singh (PW-7), Dhani Ram (PW-11) and Kehar Singh came on the spot for their rescue. from doing their work on the said land. The accused persons gave blows with the sticks, which they were carrying to PW-5, PW-8 and PW-10 who raised hue and cry on hearing which brothers of PW-5, namely, Amar Chand (PW-6), Room Singh (PW-7), Dhani Ram (PW-11) and Kehar Singh came on the spot for their rescue. However, they were also assaulted by the accused persons with sticks and stones. Because of the beatings by the accused persons, PW-6 fell unconscious and PW-7 also sustained injuries on his person including injury to his right arm. PW-5 sustained injuries on his head whereas PW-8 sustained injury on her left hand, Gopal Krishan (PW-9) also sustained injuries on his head. After causing the aforesaid injuries, the accused persons threatened the injured that in case they enter the land in future they would be done to death and thereafter left the place. The occurrence is stated to have been witnessed by Chaman Lal (PW-20) and Ravinder Awasthi (PW-21). It is also claimed that the accused persons formed unlawful assembly to achieve their common object. The injured PW-6 and PW-7 in unconscious condition and PW-& and PW-9 were removed to the hospital by PW-5 for treatment. After registration of the case on the basis of the information given by PW-5, the investigation was carried out by ASI Balwant Singh (PW-25) who proceeded to the spot and took four blood stained stones in possession vide Memo. Ext. PW 25/A, one Rakavi Charbi Ext. P-14 and two dandas Ext. P-l and P-5 were also taken in possession from the spot vide Memo. Ext. PW 3/A. Three dandas, one produced by accused Hari Chand and two produced by accused Hukam Chand were also taken in possession Vide Memo. Ext. PW 14/A. The injured were got medically examined. Dr. Bharat Bhushan (PW-1) medically examined PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8. On such examination issued MLCs Exts. PW I/A, PW 1/B and PW 1/C, respectively, thereby opining that one of the injuries sustained by Amar Chand was grievous and another was simple and had been caused with blunt weapon within 24 hours of the medical examination. About PW-7 it was opined that the injuries sustained by him were simple and were caused with blunt weapon within 24 hours of his medical examination. About PW-7 it was opined that the injuries sustained by him were simple and were caused with blunt weapon within 24 hours of his medical examination. Out of the three injuries found on the person of PW-8 two were found simple and one grievous and were opined to have been caused with blunt weapon within 24 hours of the medical examination. PW-10 and PW-11 were medically examined by Dr. Ramesh Lal (PW-16) and the MLCs Exts. PW 16/B and PW 16/E, respectively, were issued by him thereby opining that three injuries sustained by PW-11 were simple and had been caused with blunt weapon and have the duration of 24 hours at the time of medical examination. Five injuries sustained by PW-10 were found simple having been caused with blunt weapon having duration of 24 hours at the time of her medical examination. PW-5 and PW-9 were medically examined by Dr. S.K. Sharma and the MLCs, respectively, PW 24/A and PW 24/B issued by him were proved by Dr. Chetan Sharma (PW-24). As per the MLCs, the injuries sustained by PW-5 were found to be simple caused with blunt weapon within 24 hours of his medical examination and single injury sustained by PW-9 was simple having been caused with a blunt weapon within 24 hours of his medical examination. The blood stained apparels of PW-6, PW-7, PW-9 and PW-11 were produced to the police by PW-5 and were taken in possession vide Memo. Ext. PW 5/B. The land given to PW-8 by her father was got demarcated. Copies of the Musabi Ext. PW 15/ E, copies of Jamabandis Exts. PW 15/C and PW 15/D of the land given to PW-8 by her father were obtained and the land was got demarcated. The demarcation report and the Naksha Nishandehi are Exts. PW 15/ A. and PW 15/B. On completion of the investigation, the Officer Incharge of Police Station, Manali submitted a chargesheet against the accused persons who came to be tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu on a charge under Sections 147, 148, 323 read with Section 149, 325 read with Section 149, 307 read with Section 149 and 506 read with Section 149, IPC. 3. To prove the charge against the accused persons, prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses. 3. To prove the charge against the accused persons, prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses. The accused persons were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C, wherein they denied the prosecution case and claimed to be innocent. It was also claimed that they have been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of PW-5 and his family members who are inimical towards the family of the accused persons. The accused persons in their defence tendered a copy of judgment Ext. DA and also relied on Rapt Rojnamcha Ext. DX. 4. After considering the material on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused persons as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused persons and the learned Deputy Advocate General and have also gone through the records. 6. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused persons that the prosecution evidence regarding eye account of the occurrence consists of interested witnesses who are from the same family and on inimical terms with the accused and the independent eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported its version. Further there are contradictions in the reports lodged at Police Post Patlikuhal and Police Station Manali by the injured persons which render the version of the interested witnesses as unreliable. It was further contended that the prosecution version regarding the alleged beating is improbable and unreliable. Therefore, the impugned conviction and sentence, not being based on cogent and reliable evidence, are liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand the learned Deputy Advocate General while supporting the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the trial Court, contended that the charge against the accused persons was proved to the hilt and they have rightly been convicted and sentenced on the basis of evidence on record and the impugned conviction and sentence do not call for any interference. 8. It is not in dispute that Durga Singh (PW-5), Amar Chand (PW-6), Room Singh (PW-7), Dhani Ram (PW-11) all sons of Bhimi Ram, Khel Dassi (PW-8) wife of Bhimi Ram, Gopal Krishan (PW-9) grandson of Bhimi Ram and Bimla Devi (PW-10) daughter-in-law of Bhimi Ram all of whom are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence belong to the same family and their family had land dispute with the accused party. All these witnesses in their evidence tend to support the prosecution version which was given to the police at Police Station Manali by PW-5 in the form of FIR Ext. PW 5/ A. No other independent witness has corroborated the statements of the aforesaid witnesses who, belong to the same family and are on inimical terms with the accused, hence interested witnesses. 9. Evidence of a witness cannot be disbelieved simply for the reason that he is a victim in the case or is related to or interested in the victim/ complainant or is inimical towards the accused. It is a rule of prudence that evidence of such witness(s) must be read with great caution and if found confidence inspiring and trustworthy and is corroborated in material particulars by some other independent evidence, a conviction can be based on such evidence. However, if on scrutiny in view of the probabilities, and the attendant circumstances their statements are found contradictory, unnatural improbable and non confidence inspiring no conviction can be based on their evidence. , 10. In view of the evidence on record particularly the statements of Dr. Bharat Bhushan Bhardwaj (PW-1) read with MLCs Exts. PW 1/ A, PW 1/B, PW 1/C, statement of Dr. Ramesh Lal (PW-16) read with MLC Ext. PW 16/B, statement of Dr. R.Venkateshwar (PW-23), statement of Dr. Chetan Sharma (PW-24) read with MLCs Exts. PW 24/A, PW-24/B and statements of the injured persons, namely, Amar Singh (PW-6), Room Singh (PW-7), Khel Dassi (PW-8), Dhani Ram (PW-11), Bimla Devi (PW-10), Durga Singh (PW-5) and Gopal Krishan (PW-9), it is established that on medical examination of PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-11, PW-10, PW-5 and PW-9 on 12.5.1993 injuries were found on their person. However, the dispute between the parties is as to who is/are the authors of these injuries. According to the prosecution, the injuries found on the person of the aforesaid injured were caused by the accused persons by giving them danda and stone blows whereas according to the accused persons they have not caused injuries to the injured. 11. All the aforesaid injured persons, who are alleged to be interested witnesses, namely PW-5 to PW-11, have by and large supported the prosecution version. However, no implicit reliance can be laid on their statements for a variety of reasons. It is not in dispute that FIR Ext. 11. All the aforesaid injured persons, who are alleged to be interested witnesses, namely PW-5 to PW-11, have by and large supported the prosecution version. However, no implicit reliance can be laid on their statements for a variety of reasons. It is not in dispute that FIR Ext. PW 5/A was lodged by PW-5 at Police Station Manali whereas the occurrence was reported by PW-11 accompanied by PW-10 at Police Post Patlikuhal vide report Ext. DX which is prior in time as it was lodged at 7 a.m. whereas FIR Ext. PW 5/A was lodged at 8.20 a.m. A perusal of report Ext. DX and FIR Ext. PW 5/A reveals that they are contradictory of each other on various material particulars. According to the contents of report Ext. DX Dhani Ram, Amar Singh, Room Singh, Gopal Krishan, Khel Dassi and Bimla Devi left their house on 12.5.1993 at about 6-6.30 a.m. to take the cow-dung to their field, the place of occurrence. As soon as they put the cow-dung in the field, accused Hari Chand, Hukam Chand, Rewat Ram, Tek Chand, Nandi Devi and wife of Hari Chand armed with dandas and Darat can on the spot and asked the injured party as to why they were putting cow-dung in the land. When Dhani Ram (PW-11) told that they were putting the cow-dung in their own field, accused Hukam Chand got enraged and gave a danda blow on his head and legs and Hukam Chand, Rewat Ram etc. started beating his brothers, mother and sister-in-law. Despite cries raised by Dhani Ram none came forward to help them. In the meanwhile, Dhani Ram alongwith Bimla Devi escaped and went to Police Post Patlikuhal where this report Ext. DX was lodged by him in the presence of Bimla Devi (PW-10). 12. The contents of FIR Ext. PW 5/A, however, describes the occurrence in an entirely different manner. As per Ext. PW 5/A on 12.5.1993 at about 6 a.m. Durga Singh (PW-5), Bimla Devi (PW-10), Khel Dassi (PW-8) and Kamla Devi, sister-in-law of informant Durga Singh (PW-5) took cow-dung to the field. 12. The contents of FIR Ext. PW 5/A, however, describes the occurrence in an entirely different manner. As per Ext. PW 5/A on 12.5.1993 at about 6 a.m. Durga Singh (PW-5), Bimla Devi (PW-10), Khel Dassi (PW-8) and Kamla Devi, sister-in-law of informant Durga Singh (PW-5) took cow-dung to the field. As soon as they kept the kiltas (containers in which the cow-dung was carried by them) in the field, Hari Chand, Hukam Chand, Tek Chand, Lal Chand, Rewat Ram, Mohinder Singh and their wives armed with Dandas came into the field and disputed the right of the complainant party to enter into and work in the field and started beating Durga Singh, his mother and sister-in-laws with dandas. The victims raised hue and cry on hearing which Room Singh, Amar Chand, Dhani Ram and Kehar Singh came to the spot to save them but they were also beaten by the aforesaid persons with dandas and stones and all of them including Gopal Krishan sustained injuries and Amar Singh and Room Singh became unconscious because of the injuries inflicted on them. 13. It is thus evident on a comparative perusal of Ext. DX and Ext. PW 5/A that as per Ext. DX, Kehar Singh and Durga Singh who lodged Ext. PW 5/A were not on the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence whereas FIR Ext. PW 5/A a later in point of time states about their presence on the spot. It is further clear that there is marked difference in the versions contained in Ext. DX and Ext. PW 5/A about the time and circumstances under which PWs 5 to 10 are alleged to have reached on the spot. There is nothing specific in Ext. PW 5/A as to how Gopal Krishan reached on the spot. Though it states about presence of Kanta Devi on the spot but it is not so in Ext. DX. 14. Similarly, the versions in Ext. DX and Ext. PW 5/A vary about the presence of accused persons on the spot, the weapons of offence allegedly used by them and the sequence in which the injuries were allegedly caused by them to the injured. As per the contents of Ext. DX. 14. Similarly, the versions in Ext. DX and Ext. PW 5/A vary about the presence of accused persons on the spot, the weapons of offence allegedly used by them and the sequence in which the injuries were allegedly caused by them to the injured. As per the contents of Ext. DX accused Hari Chand, Hukam Chand, Rewat Ram, Tek Chand, Nandi Devi and wife of accused Hari Chand came armed with dandas and Darat and gave beatings to the injured other than Durga Singh (PW-5) who is not stated to be present on the spot whereas as per the FIR Ext. PW 5/A accused Hari Chand, Hukam Chand, Lal Chand, Rewat Ram, Mohinder Singh and their wives armed with dandas came on the spot and gave beating to the injured with dandas and stones. Thus, vide Ext. DX accused Lal Chand and Molunder Singh are not mentioned as the assailants or even present on the spot whereas they are alleged to be the assailants vide Ext. PW 5/A. Accused Tek Chand is not mentioned as the assailant or even present on the spot in Ext. PW 5/A whereas he is so mentioned vide Ext. DX. Evidently, there is variance even about the manner in which the accused were armed and assaulted the injured. 15. The contradictions /variance in the contents of the report Ext. DX and FIR Ext. PW 5/A as pointed out herein above and failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation to reconcile these contradictions/ variance in any manner raises gravest of the doubts about the correctness of the prosecution version and trustworthiness of the interested eye-witnesses PW-5 to PW-11, therefore, the incriminating statements of PWs-5 to 11 which are further in conflict with the contents of Ext. DX and FIR Ext. PW 5/A on material particulars cannot be relied upon to convict the accused persons unless corroborated by some cogent and reliable independent evidence. 16. To lend corroboration to the statements of PW-5 to PW-11, the prosecution examined Chaman Lal (PW-20) and Ravinder Awasthi (PW-21) who are the named eye-witnesses of the occurrence in the FIR Ext. PW 5/A and Tulku (PW-18), and also relied on the recovery of stones and dandas vide Exts. PW 3/A, PW 25/A and PW 4/A and the medical evidence. 17. The evidence, of PW-20 and PW-21, both of whom are the named eye-witnesses in the FIR Ext. PW 5/A and Tulku (PW-18), and also relied on the recovery of stones and dandas vide Exts. PW 3/A, PW 25/A and PW 4/A and the medical evidence. 17. The evidence, of PW-20 and PW-21, both of whom are the named eye-witnesses in the FIR Ext. PW 5/A does not support, the version of the prosecution about the alleged beating of the victims by any one or more of the accused persons. It is evident from their statements that they have not seen the occurrence. Their version as such has been simply accepted by the prosecution as they were not cross-examined by the prosecution despite having not supported its version. They are even otherwise not shown to have not truthfully deposed for any reason whatsoever. Therefore, it can be legitimately inferred that FIR Ext. PW 5/A was lodged after due deliberations and consultations and persons who had not seen the occurrence were introduced as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Tulku Ram (PW-18) introduced as eye-witness during investigation has also not supported the version of prosecution about the alleged beating of PW-5 to PW-11 by the accused persons. He has denied the presence of the accused persons on the spot and has stated that injured were not beaten by any one in his presence. This witness has also not been cross-examined by the prosecution. These circumstances multiply the suspicion about the correctness of the prosecution version. 18. Ext. PW 3/A is the Memo, regarding taking into possession dandas Exts. P-l and P-5 and a shoe Ext.P-14 and Ext. PW 25/A is the Memo, regarding taking into possession of four stones by ASI Balwant Singh (PW-25) in the presence of Jindu Ram (PW-3) a Home Guard admittedly attached with the concerned Police at the relevant time and Mani Ram (PW-26) admittedly father of injured Bimla Devi (PW-10). A perusal of the Memos, reveals that there is no mention as to who produced, collected or identified the recovered dandas and stones as weapons of offence at the time when these were taken into possession. The witnesses of recovery as per their given particulars are not independent witnesses. Moreover, PW-26 admittedly resides at a place about 13 kms. away from the place of taking the stones in possession. The witnesses of recovery as per their given particulars are not independent witnesses. Moreover, PW-26 admittedly resides at a place about 13 kms. away from the place of taking the stones in possession. He has stated that the articles taken in possession had been kept at one place by the police and none else was present there except the villagers who were watching the proceedings. It is admitted even by PW-3 that 2 or 3 families reside in the village. There is no explanation as to why some persons from the village, when the villagers were admittedly on the spot were not joined as witnesses of Memos. Exts. PW 3/A and PW 25/A. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the alleged recovery of dandas and stones vide Exts. PW 3/A and PW 25/A cannot be said reliable piece of corroborative evidence. 19. Ext. PW 4/A is the Memo, regarding taking into possession three dandas from the spot by PW-25 on production of one danda by accused Hari Chand and two by accused Hukam Chand in the presence of Simal Chand (PW-4) and Sant Kumar (PW-19). However, PW-4 and PW-19 had not supported the prosecution version about production of the dandas by accused Hari Chand and Hukam Chand but have denied production thereof by the said accused in their presence. From their statements the alleged recovery appears to be fake. 20. The medical evidence no doubt proves that PWs 5 to 11 were found to have sustained injures oh their persons when medically examined on 12.5.1993, however, mere existence of injuries on their persons does not necessarily lead to the inference that such injuries were caused by the accused. 21. The above discussion leads to the conclusion that the prosecution version is inconsistent and contradictory and the evidence consists of interested witnesses whose statements are also inconsistent, contradictory, unreliable and non-confidence inspiring and not corroborated by cogent and reliable independent evidence. In view of such evidence conviction of the accused could not have been recorded. 22. In State of Punjab and another v. Jai Singh and others (AIR 1994 SC 549), the Honble Supreme Court while dealing with almost similar circumstances as in hand held as under:— "When interested witnesses are examined it is a well settled that the evidence has to be tested in the light of the probabilities and the previous statements and the surrounding circumstances. We are satisfied that their evidence does not inspire any confidence. In the F.I.R. it is stated that P.W. Nos. 2 and 3 went to irrigate the field from that tubewell water but while giving statements at the trial they deposed that only P.W. 2 was to irrigate the field by working the tubewell while P.W. 3 had accompanied him to the tubewell to meet the deceased as mentioned above. Their presence thus becomes doubtful from the fact, that they have not come forward with a proper explanation for giving, two versions. In these circumstances we cannot, say that the High Court went wrong in ordering acquittal. These appeals are dismissed accordingly. 23. In view of the above conclusions and the legal position, the impugned conviction and sentence cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. 24. As a result this appeal is allowed and the impugned conviction and sentences are set aside and the accused persons are acquitted of the charge against them. The fine, if recovered from the accused, be refunded to them. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Appeal allowed. -