R. C. CHAVAN, J.:- Vexed by the acquittal of ten respondents by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 of the Penal Code the State has preferred this appeal. 2. Facts which led to prosecution of the respondents are as under :All the respondents as well as complainant and his family members are related to each other. They all stay in the Village Dahigaon (Gawande). On 08-08-1994 at about 12.00 noon all the ten accused started assaulting Sukhdeo Bedaji Khandare by sticks, iron pipe, sword and axes. One D.N. Khandare, standing nearby, was provoking the respondents to beat the victim. The victim sustained severe injuries. His brother Ramesh rushed to the Police Station, gave a report at Police Station, Borgaon Manju whereupon an offence was registered. The Police party immediately went to Dahigaon, picked up victim Sukhdeo and shifted him to Hospital. However, the victim succumbed to his injuries in the hospital at about 8.45 p.m. 3. In the course of investigation police caused post-mortem examination to be conducted after performing inquest, on the dead body. They recorded statements of witnesses, performed panchanama of the spot, seized incriminating articles and sent them to the· Forensic Science Laboratory, and on completion of investigation, charge-sheeted the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Akola. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the case was assigned, charged all the ten respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 of the Penal Code for having allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, being armed as members of such unlawful assembly and having committed murder of Sukhdeo in prosecution of common object of such assembly. All the accused pleaded not guilty and hence, were put on trial. The prosecution examined in all seventeen witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused. The defence of the accused is that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity and that they have absolutely nothing to do with the injuries which were sustained by the victim. Upon consideration of the prosecution evidence, in the light of defence taken by the accused, learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused, he therefore, proceeded to acquit them. Upon consideration of the prosecution evidence, in the light of defence taken by the accused, learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused, he therefore, proceeded to acquit them. Aggrieved thereby this appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard Adv. Mujumdar, learned Add!. Public Prosecutor for the State. None was present on behalf of the respondents, though the respondents had been duly served. Adv. Bhat as appointed to represent the respondents was not available. Hence, with the able assistance of Adv. Mujumdar, learned Add!. Public Prosecutor, we have examined the entire evidence on record of the trial Court to find out whether the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Judge were warranted by the evidence or not. 6. Out of 17 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.1 Ramesh, P.W.S Sunil, P.W.8 Mohan, P.W.12 Nandkumar, P.W.13 Youvraj and P.W.14 Pisabai are the eyewitnesses. Of them, P.W.S Sunil, P.W.8 Mohan and P.W.12 Nandkumar, independent eyewitnesses have not supported the prosecution. They stated that they had not seen any such incident. This leaves testimony of P.W.1 Ramesh brother of the victim. P.W.13 Youvraj, son and P.W.14 Pisabai widow, of the victim, as the only eye-witnesses to support the prosecution case. Investigating Officer P.W.17 P.I. Mirge had been asked whether the persons residing in the vicinity of the spot of incident were cited as witnesses or not. He stated that statements of the residents near-Samaj Mandir, where the incident took place, were recorded but they have not supported the prosecution. He stated that none of the residents of those houses were cited .as witnesses because they were not supporting the case of the prosecution. This may create an impression that no independent witness was ready to go alongwith the prosecution case may be, because the prosecution case itself was not in tune with the reality. 7. P.W.1 Ramesh, victim's brother, had given a report which was received by P.W.16 A.P.I. Agasti who had registered an offence and gone to the village to pick up the victim. Ramesh stated that at about 12.30 noon, when he was returning from his field, he saw a scuffle going on near the flag of Samaj Mandir. All the accused had dragged the victim Sukhdeo near the shop of Kabir from the said flag. Ramesh stated that at about 12.30 noon, when he was returning from his field, he saw a scuffle going on near the flag of Samaj Mandir. All the accused had dragged the victim Sukhdeo near the shop of Kabir from the said flag. From the shop of Kabir the victim was allegedly dragged to a place in front of the house of the accused Vakil, where accused No.4 Sahadeo and accused No.3 Deorao, assaulted Sukhdeo on his legs by pipes. Accused No.1 Deoman and accused No.2 Vakil pierced a spear on the victim's leg, other accused persons were carrying axes, sticks and swords etc. Thus, P.W.1 Ramesh has attributed actual assault to only accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4. He stated that one D. N. Khandare was instigating all the accused to assault Sukhdeo and said D.N. Khandare said that if brothers of victim came they could also be killed. He claimed to have gone to the Police Station for giving a report. He proved his report at Exhs.33 and 34. He stated that victims' son Youvraj came to the Police Station when he was giving the report. 5. In cross-examination, Ramesh admitted in paragraph No.3 that most of the facts which he deposed before the Court namely that he saw a scuffle when he was returning from the field that accused No.6 Dilip and accused No.8 Vinayak had dragged the victim and that accused Nos.3 and 4 had given blows by pipe and that on D. N. Khandare was instigating others, were stated by him to the police but were not in his report and he could not assign any reason for these omissions. He had stated in his report that his nephew Jitendra had come and informed him that Jitendra's father was dragged by one person and was being assaulted by them, but in the evidence before the Court, he denied having stated so to the police. He denied having told the police about witnessing the incident from the lane, as also the fact that Pandurang Khandare, Vishwanath Khandare and Deorao Wakpanjar and many others had gathered at the spot. He contradicted the concerned portion of his F.I.R. which has been marked as A, B & C and were duly proved by P.W.16 A.P.I. Agasti who had recorded the report. He contradicted the concerned portion of his F.I.R. which has been marked as A, B & C and were duly proved by P.W.16 A.P.I. Agasti who had recorded the report. Thus, it may be seen that the witness is giving altogether different version about the incident, in the Court. 9. Ramesh had stated that Sunil Lokhande, Deorao Wakpanjar, Pandurang Khandare and Vishwanath Khandare had witnessed the incident. Disclosure of these names immediately after the incident in the report and contradiction in respect of these names except that of Sunil in the evidence before the Court would indicate that these names were stated by him at that time under the belief that these persons would support his version. These three persons, though disclosed to have been eye-witnesses in the F.I.R., have not been examined by the prosecution, Sukhdeo has been examined as P.W.5 he turned hostile. The F.I.R. mentions that his nephew Jitendra had informed him that Jitendra' s father was being attacked but Jitendra too is not examined as a witness. Names of Youvraj and Pisabai, son and widow of the victim, who deposed as eye-witnesses, in the Court do not find mention in the F.I.R. and those who are named in the F.I.R. as eye-witnesses are kept away from the Court. 10. P.W.13 Youvraj is victim's son. He stated that at about 11.30 a.m. on 08-08-1994 when he was returning after answering nature's call his mother met him about 5 feet away from his house and told him that Accused No.6 Dilip and Accused No.8 Vinayak had dragged his father from the house. He stated that he and his mother ran towards the main road and saw that near the heap of manure his father was assaulted by accused Nos.4 Sahadeo and 3 Deorao. Accused Nos.1 Deoman and 2 Vakil pierced the spear on victim's hand, leg and eye. Other accused persons were present there. Some of them like Deepak, Vinayak and Dilip were armed with axes and some others with sticks. The witness states that other accused also assaulted his father with weapons in their hands. He does hot state that his father was dragged towards the shop of Kabir and from there to the house of accused Vakil. Some of them like Deepak, Vinayak and Dilip were armed with axes and some others with sticks. The witness states that other accused also assaulted his father with weapons in their hands. He does hot state that his father was dragged towards the shop of Kabir and from there to the house of accused Vakil. In cross-examination he claimed to have stated to the police that he met his mother 5 feet away from the house, that accused Deorao was assaulting his father by pipe; accused Vakil assaulted his father with spear, but could not assign any reason as to why it was not in his police statement. He denied the suggestion that his father had a quarrel with villagers of village Palso and people of Dhangar community from his own village. 11. P.W.14 Pisabai, victim's widow, states that at about 11.30 a.m. to 12.00 noon when she and her husband were present at their house, accused No.6 Dilip and accused No.8 had dragged her husband out of the house to the shop of Shyamraoj known as Kabir Kirana Shop, from where he was dragged to the house of Januji and Vakil, where accused No.4 Sahadeo and accused No.3 Deorao hit her husband with pipe, accused Nos.1 Deoman and 2 Vakil pierced the spear on his leg. She stated that she was standing at the shop and shouting, but nobody came for her husband's rescue. After assault all the accused persons went away. She then went to her house and narrated the incident to her daughter-in-law and sister-in-law, who came with her in a bullock cart and brought her husband to the house. Thereafter police jeep came. 12. In her cross-examination, Pisabai stated that they were on cordial terms with the accused. It is therefore, not clear as to why the accused were suddenly enraged to launch such a brutal attack on her husband. She claimed that she had told the police about her husband being dragged, assaulted with pipe by accused Sahadeo and Deorao, with spear by accused Deoman and Vakil, but could not explain as to why these things are not in her police statement. 13. She claimed that she had told the police about her husband being dragged, assaulted with pipe by accused Sahadeo and Deorao, with spear by accused Deoman and Vakil, but could not explain as to why these things are not in her police statement. 13. This discrepant account of three related eye-witnesses, out of whom names of two do not appear in the F.I.R., would be grossly inadequate to draw any conclusion about involvement of the respondents, particularly in the face of hostility of three eye-witnesses examined and admission of the Investigating Officer P.W.17 P.I. Mirge that no persons of the locality were ready to go along with the prosecution story. 14. P.W.15 Shankarrao is victim's brother who was serving in the Collectorate at Akola at the relevant time. He stated that at about 2.30 to 3.00 p.m. on learning that some persons from his village had been admitted in the Civil Hospital, he went to the hospital and found that his own brother was admitted in Ward No.4. He claims that his brother narrated the whole incident to him. He stated that he asked the Doctor to arrange for recording of Dying Declaration. Doctor told him to arrange for blood. He made arrangement for blood and then at 8.15 to 8.30 p.m. his brother expired. He was in the hospital till the post-mortem was over. Except for P.Ws.13 Youvraj and 14 Pisabai no other relation met him there. He admitted that he did not inform the police to make arrangement for recording Dying Declaration. He denied that his brother was unconscious. It is worthy of note that neither P.W.13 Youvraj who had accompanied the police to bring his father from the village to the hospital nor P.W.14 Pisabai victim's widow state that the victim was conscious or communicated anything to them while being taken to the hospital. P.W.16 A.P.I. Agasti who brought the victim also does not state that the victim communicated anything to him. Yet P.W.15 Shankarrao states that victim disclosed about the incident to him. If the victim was conscious A.P.I. Agasti would surely made an attempt to get first hand account from the victim. 15. Though no medical record about the treatment of the victim has been filed before the trial Court, evidence of P.W.2 Dr. Kamal Wankhade would give an idea of the accident and nature of the injuries sustained by the victim. Dr. 15. Though no medical record about the treatment of the victim has been filed before the trial Court, evidence of P.W.2 Dr. Kamal Wankhade would give an idea of the accident and nature of the injuries sustained by the victim. Dr. Wankhade, conducted post-mortem. According to the Doctor the victim had four lacerated wounds, five incise wounds, and superficial multiple abrasion over abdomen. Bones of his limbs have sustained fractures and so had ribs. Fracture of ribs led to tearing of right lung. She proved the notes of post-mortem examination at Exh.38. Given nature of these injuries, time at which they were inflicted and the time when the victim died viz. 08-08-1994 i.e. on the same day at about 8045 p.m., the possibility of the victim having been conscious or in a position to communicate anything to Shankarrao P.W.15 is bleak and therefore, the version of Shankarrao was rightly rejected by the learned trial Judge. 16. Remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution are P.W.3 Patwari Tarapure who prepared sketch of the spot vide Exh.31 and P.WA Anil, panch at spot-panchanama Exh.44. P.W.6 Kisan, P.W.7 Pramod. P.W.10 Gajanan Malkhede and P.W.11 Gajanan Dahale, panchas at various panchanamas drawn up in the course of investigation, have not supported the prosecution. Report from the Forensic Science Laboratory at Exh.65 does not help in connecting the accused to the crime. 17. In view of this state of evidence, it is clear that the learned trial Judge justifiably held that the charges levelled against the respondents were not proved. Hence, we find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the respondents, shall stand cancelled.