Judgment B. Prasad, J.-This set of appeals is on behalf of ten accused persons, who have been tried by the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No. 9/1999 under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149, 326/149,324,307 and 302, IPC. The accused appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 148, 302, 307, 323/149, 324/149, 326/149, 324 and 326, IPC and sentenced as under:- All the accused were convicted under Section 148, IPC for one years rigorous imprisonment, for offence under Section 302, IPC accused were convicted with life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment; for offence under Section 307, IPC accused were convicted with five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months simple imprisonment; for offence under Section 323/149, IPC accused were convicted with six months rigorous imprisonment; for offence under Section 324/149, IPC accused were convicted with one years rigorous imprisonment; for offence under Section 326/149, IPC accused were convicted with three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine further undergo one months simple imprisonment. All the sentences were given separately. Accused Bariyam @ Dugiya was further convicted for offence under Section 324 for one years rigorous imprisonment and for offence under Section 326, IPC he was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months simple imprisonment. Accused Muse Khan in addition to the above was further convicted for offence under Section 324 with a sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment and for offence under Section 326, IPC he was sentenced with three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one months simple imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution was initiated after FIR was lodged at police station Nachana on 010.1998 at 3.45 AM. 1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one months simple imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution was initiated after FIR was lodged at police station Nachana on 010.1998 at 3.45 AM. Reporting that at about 1.40 AM in the night when Sabir and his wife Jamiyat were sleeping on the back of dhani and other persons were sleeping in front of the dhani, at that time the accused Jusub s/o Jagmal, Hazi Khan s/o Jalu Khan, Khania s/o Laldeen, Dugia s/o Laldeen, Mangalia r/o Dedasari, Kayamdeen r/o Nachana came alongwith 7-8 persons. These accused persons were armed with weapons like axe, dharia, sword, lathies. Their object was to kill Sabir and Jamiyat and in furtherance thereof , they caused injuries to both of these persons. Noor Mohd. was also given beating under the belief that he is Sabir. On receiving the injuries, Jamiyat shouted and on hearing the shouting, all the members of the family reached on the spot and the accused made their escape good. It was a moonlit night and, therefore, the accused were identified. In the FIR, motive was disclosed to be the fact of marriage of Jamiyat with Sabir and Jusub and others were not happy with this marriage and, therefore, the incident had occurred. Sabir Khan and others were taken to the hospital at Nachana. Sabirs condition being serious, he was referred for treatment to Jodhpur and on way to Jodhpur, he succumbed to the injuries and, therefore, he was carried back. The case, therefore, was registered under Sections 147, 149, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 302, IPC. After completion of investigation, case was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Pokaran from where the case was committed for trial. 3. At the trial, charges were framed against the accused persons for offences under Sections 148, 302, 307, 323/149, 324/149, 326/149, 324, 326 and 323, IPC. Accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. At the trial, prosecution examined 34 witnesses. In defence DW. 1 Jamali and DW. 2 Maroof Khan were examined. After considering the case of the prosecution and defence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the motive of the accused was to kill Sabir and Jamiyat when they were sleeping on the back of the dhani and other members were sleeping on the front side. 4. In defence DW. 1 Jamali and DW. 2 Maroof Khan were examined. After considering the case of the prosecution and defence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the motive of the accused was to kill Sabir and Jamiyat when they were sleeping on the back of the dhani and other members were sleeping on the front side. 4. As deposed by PW.9 Jamiyat case is that while she and her husband were sleeping, at that time, the accused came. She named in her Court statement all the ten accused persons and alleged that they were armed with dharia, sword and lathi, specially assigning the roles, she said in her Court statement that Safi Khan accused inflicted dharia on the neck of Sabir, Muse Khan hit Sabir Khan on the face. Dugia also gave a dharia blow and then she said that all the accused persons inflicted blows on Sabir. 5. She also submitted that Dugia gave a dharia blow to her, which resulted into cutting of her finger. Aladita gave a lahti blow to her. Muse Khan gave sword blow. The trial Court also observed the statement of PW. 1 Rajak and considering the statement of Rajak, the trial Court has pointed out that Hazi, Khania, Jusub Khan, Dugia, Muse Khan alongwith five other persons of Dedasari gave injuries by sword and lathi. He admitted that he had identified all the accused persons. Rest of the persons were not named because he had not known them by name. However, he had identified them correctly in the Court. 6. PW. 2 Lakha author of the FIR Exhibit P/9 stated that in the FIR, he had given the names of Jusub Khan, Hazi Khan ,Dugia, Muse Khan and Safia, the present accused persons and one Kayamdeen was also named. Seven eight other persons were also there. The Court noted that Kayamdeen who has been named in the FIR was not charge sheeted and was not found to have been present at the time of the occurrence by police. PW. 3 Sayabdeen, PW. 4 Noor Mohd. and PW. 7 Sadik have also implicated all the accused persons. Similarly, PW. 12 Aldad Khan and PW. 10 Karimat have also stated that they were sleeping near the scene of occurrence and had seen the incident. The trial Court had accepted the explanation of PW. PW. 3 Sayabdeen, PW. 4 Noor Mohd. and PW. 7 Sadik have also implicated all the accused persons. Similarly, PW. 12 Aldad Khan and PW. 10 Karimat have also stated that they were sleeping near the scene of occurrence and had seen the incident. The trial Court had accepted the explanation of PW. 2 Lakha that in the FIR he could not give the names of the accused persons because he was in haste. The learned trial Court has referred to the statement of Dr. Dinesh Kothari PW. 21. The learned trial Court also considered the evidence of recoveries made at the instance of the accused persons. Finally considering the prosecution case to have been established, the trial Court proceeded to convict the accused appellants as aforesaid and sentenced them to different sentences, which has already been quoted hereinabove. 7. Arguing the case of the accused appellants Jusub Khan, Khania, Taj Mohd., Nabu Khan and Ilamdin Mr. J.S. Chaudhary, Advocate urged that the accused Jusub Khan, Khania, Shafi Mohd. Taj Mohd., Nabu Khan and Ilamdin have been attributed with weapons in the nature of lathi. According to the post-mortem report Exhibit P/26 the injuries sustained by the deceased are detailed in injury report No. 43 of 1998 Exhibit 22. According to this report, there were eight injuries sustained by the deceased, out of which all the injuries were caused by sharp weapon. Thus, according to the learned Counsel there was no use of lathi qua the deceased by any one of the accused aforesaid because according to the witnesses these accused persons had lathies in their hands. When the deceased has not sustained any injury by blunt weapon then conviction of these accused persons with the aid of Section 302 IPC simpliciter as made by the learned Sessions Judge is a mistake of law because there was no charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and consequently no conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC has been recorded. No specific overt act is assigned to these accused persons. Therefore, their conviction cannot be sustained on plain and simple reading of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Most of the witnesses have deposed about these accused only showing their presence alongwith lathis. 8. No specific overt act is assigned to these accused persons. Therefore, their conviction cannot be sustained on plain and simple reading of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Most of the witnesses have deposed about these accused only showing their presence alongwith lathis. 8. The learned Counsel for the accused further emphasised that according to the prosecution case the accused above named have not been assigned any overt act so far as the deceased is concerned. In absence of an overt act when it is found that there was no blunt weapon injury, implication of the aforesaid six accused persons is not only doubtful but appears to be an exaggeration in the prosecution case. He has further stressed that since no overt act qua the deceased has been assigned to these accused persons and there are no blunt weapon injuries, their implication appears to be false. From circumstantial evidence also in the nature of recovered lathies according to the learned Counsel implication of the aforesaid accused persons is ruled out because none of the lathies have been found to be blood stained. Absence of blood from the lathies, the weapon assigned to them and recovered at their instance shows that the lathies had not been used in any fashion as far as the deceased was concerned. 9. Keeping in mind the aforesaid facts of the case qua the present accused persons, if judged in the background that the incident had taken place in the moon lit night, the deceased, injured and the witnesses were sleeping. It is claimed they had awoken from sleep when they heard the cries. In the circumstances where the deceased is alleged to have sustained eight injuries at the hands of ten accused persons, the incident cannot be said to have been programmed to give an injury to single accused. These prosecution witnesses cannot be said to have acquired a frame of mind, where it was possible to identify the assailants in the moonlit night where time taken in the assault would be short. The establishment of the identity of these accused persons is also, therefore, a doubtful proposition. If the question of presence in the aforesaid background is seen coupled with the fact that there was no corresponding injuries on the deceased by blunt weapon, then irresistible inference should be that their implication has been a case of over implication. 10. The establishment of the identity of these accused persons is also, therefore, a doubtful proposition. If the question of presence in the aforesaid background is seen coupled with the fact that there was no corresponding injuries on the deceased by blunt weapon, then irresistible inference should be that their implication has been a case of over implication. 10. Further the witnesses of the prosecution are not consistent in showing their presence. There are contradictions in the nature of describing lathi blows in the police statement. Therefore, the testimony of the injured eye witness PW.9 Jamiat is doubtful wherein her police statement Exhibit D/4 does not contain any allegation against the accused Taj Mohd., Nabu Khan and Ilamdin in her police statement. Accused Jusub Khan has only been named to be present and Khania has not been shown to have been present. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, these six accused persons have been named for the reasons best known to the prosecution, without there being any overt act established. No circumstantial evidence establishing their participation. There is variance in the prosecution case for these accused. What is surprising to note is that PW. 7 Sadik a prosecution witness has admitted that accused Jusuf , Taj Mohd. and Nabu Khan were not involved in the incident. Out of the six above named accused persons, three have been given a clean chit by PW. 7. Thus, it is not only a doubtful case qua these accused persons but then defence is established beyond doubt that these accused persons have been falsely implicated. .11. The other learned Counsel for the accused persons urged that the names of the accused Safi Mohd. and Muse Khan have not been specifically mentioned in the FIR Exhibit P/10. The FIR Exhibit P/10 has been lodged by PW. 2 Shri Lakhe Khan father of the deceased Sabir. He claims to be an eye witness. He also claim .in the FIR that he had identified the accused persons because it was a moonlit night. He was in the company of PW. 9 Jamiat. He only named five accused persons in the FIR and apart from five named accused persons, he saw 7-8 other persons. Thus, his claim that he identified the accused persons fall short of the character which can have any credence. He was in the company of PW. 9 Jamiat. He only named five accused persons in the FIR and apart from five named accused persons, he saw 7-8 other persons. Thus, his claim that he identified the accused persons fall short of the character which can have any credence. Out of the five persons named, one accused Kayamdeen was found by the investigating agency to have been falsely implicated and thus, he was not charge sheeted. No attempt was made to secure his presence during trial by the prosecution agency and he was not put to trial. In this background out of the five named accused persons, one was found to be falsely implicated by the investigating agency. Out of the named accused in the FIR, Jusuf Khan and Khania have been assigned only lathies. They are not alleged to have caused any injuries by lathies. Thus, case of these two accused persons namely, Jusuf Khan and Khania though named in the FIR falls to the ground. Out of the five named persons in the FIR, thus remains only two accused persons namely, Haji and Bariyam @ Dugia, who have been assigned sword and dharia. Out of the ten persons challaned by the prosecution case this Court is now required to assess only the case of these two accused persons. What is, therefore, seen is that major part of the prosecution story is tainted and the two accused persons thus, are entitled to the benefit of doubt. It has further been argued on behalf of the accused persons that out of ten persons, prosecution is not in a position to single out the accused persons who had given the deadly blow which resulted into fatality i.e. injury on the head. Author of the fatal blow is not available to be identified. Thus, conviction of the accused persons under Section 302 IPC simpliciter is not a correct proposition of law. 12. Apart from conviction of the accused persons under Section 302 IPC simpliciter, the learned trial Court has ordered conviction of the accused under Section 307 IPC. That too is without the aid of Section 34 or Section 149 IPC. The injury report of Smt. Jamiyat records three incised wounds and a diffuse swelling. 12. Apart from conviction of the accused persons under Section 302 IPC simpliciter, the learned trial Court has ordered conviction of the accused under Section 307 IPC. That too is without the aid of Section 34 or Section 149 IPC. The injury report of Smt. Jamiyat records three incised wounds and a diffuse swelling. The learned Counsel for the accused submitted that with the aid of Sections 34 and 149 IPC, conviction of all the accused persons under Section 307 IPC simpliciter is a proposition, which is unknown to law. In her statement, she has described that Dugia gave a dharia blow when she tried to intervene, her small finger was cut, Muse Khan gave a sword blow, which hit the reverse side of the right hand. Safi Mohd. inflicted dharia blow, which hit her on the right side. Dite Khan gave a lathti blow,which hit her on the left leg. All the injuries sustained by this witness Jamiyat were assigned to these four accused persons. Out of them, injury on left ankle is a simple diffuse swelling and injury on right elbow joint is also simple as a linear incised superficial skin deep injury. One injury which is on terminal phalange with bone and middle phalange is grievous and another hurt in linear incised wound, which is also grievous. The learned Counsel submitted that though there are two grievous hurts sustained by this witness but none of them can be said to be so as to bring the case under Section 307 IPC. Therefore, even these four accused persons, who are responsible for causing such injuries, would not be liable for conviction under Section 307 IPC. Conviction of the accused persons have been made under Sections 323, 326,149 & 148 IPC when the principle offences are not made out, conviction on such offences would also be of doubtful nature. So also the conviction of two accused persons Dugia and Muse Khan under Section 326 IPC is difficult to sustain. 13. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by Mr. M.L. Garg, Counsel for the complainant submitted that it is a case of deep seated enmity wherein Sabir and Jamiat were designed to be punished for their marriage because the accused persons wanted that PW. 7 Jamiat be not married to Sabir. She was desired to be given to a boy of Kher. M.L. Garg, Counsel for the complainant submitted that it is a case of deep seated enmity wherein Sabir and Jamiat were designed to be punished for their marriage because the accused persons wanted that PW. 7 Jamiat be not married to Sabir. She was desired to be given to a boy of Kher. On this Hazi nurshed a grudge and he assembled other persons to cause their death. Simply because a girl has been given in marriage to a boy, who was not of the liking of the accused Hazi Khan, he ganged up with other accused persons and thus, caused the death of Sabir and injured Jamiat and prosecution witnesses. The five accused persons were named in the FIR. Though all were not named but were included by the numbers, FIR having been lodged in post-haste, inclusion of the names of all the accused persons was not properly made but that by itself should not detest the Court to believe the prosecution story. The witnesses were in a position to identify as the parties were known to each other and it was a moonlit night and the accused could be identified. .14. We have given our thoughtful consideration and have perused the record. From the statements of the witnesses, it stands out boldly that the deceased Sabir had sustained sharp edged injuries. He has not sustained any injury from blunt weapon. The trial Court has not framed charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 or 149 IPC. In this background, we have to examine the act of each accused person individually. If we take the best case of the prosecution, then Muse Khan, Khania, Dite Khan, Taj Mohd., Nabu Khan and Ilamdin are the accused persons who have been assigned with the lathi blows. No lathti injury has been sustained by the deceased Sabir. None of the lathies recovered were found stained with blood. Thus, use of lathies cannot be presumed to be there in the case of the deceased. No other weapon has been assigned to these six accused persons. In that background, their individual act excludes their implication under Section 302 IPC to cause the death of Sabir. None of the lathies recovered were found stained with blood. Thus, use of lathies cannot be presumed to be there in the case of the deceased. No other weapon has been assigned to these six accused persons. In that background, their individual act excludes their implication under Section 302 IPC to cause the death of Sabir. Not framing of charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 or 149 IPC would not alone could have detracted us from looking into the individual acts of these six accused persons, .but their weapons have not been found to be of any consequence so far as the deceased is concerned. In that background, we feel that they are entitled to benefit of doubt about their implication in the assault as alleged by the prosecution witnesses to deceased Sabir. That leaves us with four accused persons alleged to be armed with dharia and sword. Accused Sabir Mohd. and Muse Khan are not named in the FIR. What is stated in the FIR is that apart from five known accused persons, 7-8 other persons were also there in which Safi Mohd. and Muse Khan are said to have been included. FIR was lodged by PW. 2 Lakha Khan. He was known to these accused persons and not naming these persons in the FIR shows a kind of attempt on the part of the prosecution to keep their options open to name the accused persons at will, subsequently. According to the witnesses on fateful day night was a moonlit night and the accused were known to witnesses from before. Therefore, absence of names of these two accused persons assumes importance. In this background, when they were known to Lakha Khan PW. 2 , who is the author of the FIR, then non-mention of their names in the FIR has to be seen with suspicion. This assumes added importance when this witness in cross-examination claims that he had given the names of these accused persons to the SHO while he was preparing police papers. Regarding non-inclusion of the names by the SHO, he had made an oral complaint to the Superintendent of Police. This assumes added importance when this witness in cross-examination claims that he had given the names of these accused persons to the SHO while he was preparing police papers. Regarding non-inclusion of the names by the SHO, he had made an oral complaint to the Superintendent of Police. This statement of the witness that he had given the names to the SHO and the SHO had not mentioned the names in the FIR and further a complaint was made by this witness to the Superintendent of Police, are the facts which require serious consideration because there is nothing on record to support this claim. We consider it prudent to extend the benefit of doubt to these two accused persons, namely, Muse Khan and Safi Mohd. 15. This leaves us with two accused persons Hazi Khan and Bariyam @ Dugia wherein in the statement of PW. 2, it is alleged that accused Hazi Khan gave a sword blow on the chin of the deceased and accused Bariyam @ Dugia gave dharia blow on the neck. According to the post-mortem report, injury No. 1 proved fatal as a result of extensive fracture of frontal bone. This injury has not been assigned by PW. 2 to any of these accused persons. If we examine the statement of PW.9 Jamiyat, we find that she in her statement has stated that Dugia gave dharia blows to Sabir on the face and another on the neck and regarding Hazi Khan, she has stated that Hazi Khan had hit Sabir on head. According to this witness the fatal injury has not come in the share of Bariyam @ Dugia. When confronted with her police statement Exhibit D/4, she has not specified any specific injury so far as in that statement. She was examined by the police twice, firstly on 010.1998 and then on 110.1998. In her first statement, she has not assigned any specific injury to this accused person. Thus, participation of Hazi Khan also cannot be considered to be a safe proposition a regards fatal injury of Sabir. 16. This leaves us in dark about the identity of the accused, who has caused injury No. 1, which is said to be the injury responsible for causing the death of Sabir. In absence of a specific allegation, how can the liability of death be fixed on any person? 16. This leaves us in dark about the identity of the accused, who has caused injury No. 1, which is said to be the injury responsible for causing the death of Sabir. In absence of a specific allegation, how can the liability of death be fixed on any person? Who has caused injury No. 1, is not established clearly by the evidence of the witness. This injury according to the doctor, is responsible for death. From the statements of the two most important witnesses i.e. PW. 9 Jamiyat and PW. 2 Lakha this injury cannot be fixed on the head of any of the accused persons. As regards the other eye witnesses PW. 1 Rajak Khan, he stated that Muse Khan inflicted sword blow on the head of Sabir. Muse Khan is not named in the FIR, therefore, this witness leads us to nothing. PW. 3 Sayabdeen states in his Court statement that Hazi Khan gave a sword blow on Sabir on forehead. This statement of the witness that Hazi Khan assaulted with a sword has not been incorporated in his police statement D/2. Thus, his statement D/2 knocks out to the bottom of rigour of the statement of this witness that Hazi Khan gave sword blow. This witness in his police statement D/2 has not assigned any specific weapon or injury to accused Hazi Khan. He was examined twice by the police. Another eye witness PW. 4 Noor Mohd. in his statement has only identified Jusub Khan, Hazi Khan, Safia and Dugia and has refused to identify the other accused persons charge sheeted. No specific injury has been assigned by this witness to any one of the accused persons. His statement is omnibus statement. Another witness is PW. 7 Sadik. He has not identified six accused persons and has only named Muse Khan, Hazi Khan, Dugia and Sabir. Thus, this witness has also failed to level any allegation against any of the accused persons responsible for injury No. 1. Thus, injury No. 1 remains a question to be solved as to who has caused the death. 9.17. Prosecution witnesses PW. 10 Karimat and PW. 12 Aldad Khan have also not contributed and described the author of injury No. 1.Thus, from none of the statement of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear as to who out of the ten accused persons is responsible for injury No. 1. 9.17. Prosecution witnesses PW. 10 Karimat and PW. 12 Aldad Khan have also not contributed and described the author of injury No. 1.Thus, from none of the statement of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear as to who out of the ten accused persons is responsible for injury No. 1. In the FIR only four charge sheeted accused persons were named. Out of these four persons, Jusub Khan was given a clean chit by PW.7 Sadik. PW. 7 Sadik in his cross-examination has stated that Jusub Khan s/o Jagmal Khan & Taj Mohd. were not present at the scene of occurrence. Thus, it is seen that one of the accused persons Jusub Khan s/o Jagmal Khan has been positively stated to be absent from the scene of occurrence though in the FIR, he has been named. This contradiction in the prosecution case coupled with the fact that one of the accused persons named in the FIR Kayamdeen was not even charge sheeted by the police. Positively Kayamdeen has been over implicated. Jusub Khan s/o Jagmal Khan is also over implicated. Safi Mohd., Muse Khan, Dite Khan, Taj Mohd., Nabu Khan and Ilamdeen these accused persons were not as were named in the FIR. This is only an indication that there was a positive attempt on the part of the prosecution to falsely implicate the accused persons. In that background where none of the witnesses have been successful in pointing out the author of injury No. 1 to the deceased, it cannot be said as to whose act caused injury No. 1, which resulted into the death of Sabir. In these circumstances, we are left with no option than to accept the defence theory that it is doubtful that these accused persons were responsible to cause injury No. 1. They having been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC simpliciter, where it was not known who was the author of injury No. 1, we feel it unsafe to sustain the conviction of the accused persons Under Section 302 IPC. 18. Resultantly the appeal of the accused persons challenging their convictions under Section 302 IPC deserves to be allowed and conviction of the accused persons under Section 302 IPC, simpliciter is set aside. This takes us to the conviction of ten accused appellants under Section 307, IPC. The injury report of PW . 18. Resultantly the appeal of the accused persons challenging their convictions under Section 302 IPC deserves to be allowed and conviction of the accused persons under Section 302 IPC, simpliciter is set aside. This takes us to the conviction of ten accused appellants under Section 307, IPC. The injury report of PW . 9 Jamiyat clearly shows that none of the injuries can be said to be dangerous to life. They are on non-vital part and cannot be described to be of vulnerable nature. The requirement of Section 307, IPC is not satisfied by looking to the injuries of this witness. The injuries were sustained by her when she tried to intervene for saving her husband. Therefore, the case for causing such bodily injury which could result into death to the injured PW . 9 Jamiyat is not seen available on record. This leaves us to infer that the offence under Section 307, IPC also cannot be said to be made out against all the ten accused persons. Consequently, their conviction under Section 307 IPC also cannot be maintained. The accused persons have also been convicted under Sections 323/149, 326/149 and 324/149, IPC and two accused persons have also been convicted under Sections 324 and 326, IPC. 19. The major part of the prosecution story has been disbelieved regarding implication of the ten accused persons qua injury No. 1 of the deceased. Injuries of Jamiyat fall sort of proving the case under Section 307, IPC. The case of the accused persons has been examined from the point of view of their conviction under Section 148, IPC. Six accused persons with lathies if excluded from persons, the number which becomes available is only four, out of which also two persons were not named in the FIR. Therefore, number of accused persons available for conviction under Section 148 IPC cannot, therefore, be considered safe proposition and, therefore, offence under Section 148 IPC cannot be said to be made out. Similarly, the number would fall for the remaining conviction under Sections 323/149,324/149 and 326/149, IPC. This leaves us to the four assailants of Jamiyat, who are alleged to have caused three incised and one simple would to her. The story of PW . Similarly, the number would fall for the remaining conviction under Sections 323/149,324/149 and 326/149, IPC. This leaves us to the four assailants of Jamiyat, who are alleged to have caused three incised and one simple would to her. The story of PW . 9 Jamiyat having been not found correct regarding the allegations, it would not be safe to base conviction of the accused persons on her testimony because she has not been corroborated in material particulars qua her statement. Therefore, the offences under Sections 324 and 326 IPC are also not held made out because all the witnesses of the prosecution have been found to be tainted. No independent corroboration is available. In absence of independe