Judgment B. Prasad, J.-The present appeal is filed by eight appellants namely Rajendara @ Raju Anil Kumar, Chander Pal, Sahi Ram, Suresh Kumar, Rajesh, Smt. Kamlesh and Smt. Vidhya being aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Rajgarh in Sessions Case No. 27/96 dated 17.05.2001. By the impugned Judgment the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as under:- Offence u/s Accused Persons Sentence Fine In Default Of Fine 148 IPC All the accused persons1 Years R.I. 302/149 IPC " Life Imprisonment 5,000/-Six months R.I. 307, 307/149 IPC " 5 Years R.I. 2,000/-2 Months R.I. 2. The prosecution was initiated on the basis of FIR which was lodged by injured Gopal Ram at Police Station Hamirvas. On the basis of statement given by injured Gopal Ram, Criminal Case No. 164/1997 was registered at Police Station Hamirvas and investigation was conducted. Charge Sheet was submitted before the committal Court and after commitment case came before the trial Court for trial. Charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 IPC. Charge-sheet was filed against the six accused persons only and two accused appellants Smt. Kamlesh and Smt. Vidhya were not found guilty by the investigating agency. On the framed charges against the challan accused trial proceeded. 3. At the trial, after recording of the statement of witnesses, an application dated 24.04.1999 was moved on behalf of the prosecution under Section 319, CrPC. The application was accepted by the order of the trial Court dated 05.06.1999 and accused Smt. Kamlesh and Smt. Vidhya were also considered to be impleaded as accused. After these accused persons were added as accused, statements of witnesses were again recorded at the trial. In all, prosecution examined 23 witnesses and tendered 83 documents in evidence. The accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC. They denied the prosecution case. Eight witnesses were examined in defence and 13 documents were exhibited. 4. The trial Court after considering the case of the prosecution came to the conclusion that the defence as produced, is not tenable. The plea of alibi is not sustainable. That has been found to be false. The trial Court has considered the arguments of defence regarding FIR. The First Information Report as considered by the investigating agency, based on the statement of injured Gopal Ram, has been found to be the real First Information Report. The plea of alibi is not sustainable. That has been found to be false. The trial Court has considered the arguments of defence regarding FIR. The First Information Report as considered by the investigating agency, based on the statement of injured Gopal Ram, has been found to be the real First Information Report. Prior to that, only a cursory report was lodged, without disclosing complete facts. According to the trial Court unless a report contains basic facts required to describe an offence, it cannot be considered as a report disclosing facts necessary to constitute a cognizable offence. The trial Court has also not accepted the defence version that there was an attempt to implicate the whole family as Sheodutt Ram was though named in the First Information Report has not been impleaded as an accused at the trial. The trial Court came to the conclusion that if First Information Report and the testimony of the witnesses if examined then it does not appear that the Sheodutt Ram was the accused. By an attempt of naming him in First Information Report it cannot be said that there was a delebrate attempt on the part of the prosecution to implicate the whole family. Because Sheodutt Ram was not an accused charge-sheeted or tried though named do not travel to a great length. 5. Trial Court considered that 15-20 days prior to the actual incident, there was some quarrel between the family of accused party and the family of the injured party. The family got divided in two groups. One group was of the family of Sheodutt Ram and Sahi Ram. Chandgi Rams family formed the other group. On the day of incident, wife of Chandgi Ram Smt. Om Prakashi was assaulted by the (sic) a member of accused party. Raju @ Rajendra was alleged to be the person involved in that incident. The details of this incident was given to Gopal Ram and Shai Ram by Om Prakashi. Chandgi Ram wanted to resolve the matter in presence of the villagers and therefore, he called prominent persons of the village namely Satveer S/o Ramchander, Ransingh S/o Gopal Ram and Lal Chand Beniwal. Sheodutt Ram was also called. He did not accept the mistake of his son Ranendra. On the contrary, Sheodutt Ram asserted that no such occurrence as alleged has taken place involving his son Rajendra. 6. Sheodutt Ram was also called. He did not accept the mistake of his son Ranendra. On the contrary, Sheodutt Ram asserted that no such occurrence as alleged has taken place involving his son Rajendra. 6. The accused persons keeping in view there objective that Chandgi Rams family have got to be given a lesson made preparation. They saw Gopal Ram going in the lane, he was unarmed. He was attacked by lethal weapon like Farsi, axe, barchi and lathi. The natural version of this incident has been given in the first information. According to the learned Judge Rajendra started causing injury to Gopal Ram by Barchi and then Suresh caused injury to Gopal Ram at that time, two brothers of Gopal Ram Satveer and Dhanpat came to rescue him. The attention of the accused got diverted towards Satveer and Dhanpat as member of the family of Chandgi Ram. The accused also wanted to give a lesson to these persons. The accused started assaulting these two interveners. Dhanpat having sustained injury fell on the way. Satveer in order to save himself tried to enter in the Court yard of Ramji Lal. He did not succeed, as Gopal Ram had already entered into that Court yard and took shelter by closing the door. He tried to enter the house of Balbir but that too was not available being closed. In the helpless condition, he returned back to the Court yard there the accused reached with their weapon and caused injuries. In this sequence Dhanpat sustained 15 injuries. Satveer sustained 14 injuries. According to the doctor Satveer succumbed to the injuries at the scene of occurrence and Dhanpat died at the hospital. 7. According to the doctor, the death of two deceased was due to injuries sustained by them. Gopal Ram sustained four injuries. Out of which, two were incised wounds and two were lacerated wounds. None of the bones of this witnesses was fractured. Injuries were on non-vital parts. The trial Court has found that if Dhanpat and Satveer would have not come to rescue Gopal Ram, then he would have died due the assault, which was made on him. But by intervention of Satveer and Dhanpat he got saved. Therefore, according to trial Court the offence under Section 307 I.P.C is also made out against the accused persons for trying to kill Gopal Ram. 8. But by intervention of Satveer and Dhanpat he got saved. Therefore, according to trial Court the offence under Section 307 I.P.C is also made out against the accused persons for trying to kill Gopal Ram. 8. The trial Court has also rejected the theory of self defence wherein Chanderpal and Rajendra have sustained minor injuries. According to the learned Judge the accused have been medically examined for these injuries by doctor. The matter was not reported to police. The learned trial Court has expressed that, possibility cannot be ruled out wherein the accused could have self inflicted these injuries to establish their right of private defence. 9. The trial Court has also discarded the statement of the defence witnesses. The right of private defence as canvassed by DW. 3 Ummed Singh has not been found correct by the trial Court. The trial Court has also taken note of the fact that accused has caused injuries to Gopal Ram, Dhanpat and Satveer. In this process it was not possible for the witnesses to describe as to who was responsible for which specific injury of the injured and deceased. It is a difficult preposition to identify a particular accused for causing a particular injury. The trial Court has also considered the fact that PW. 6 Smt. Tarkeshvari, PW. 10 Balbir, PW. 11 Smt. Savitri, PW. 1 Jai Naranin, and PW. 15 Malkan Singh though have turned hostile but merely because these witnesses have turned hostile the prosecution case cannot be discarded. According to the trial Court the parties were closely known to each other and in this background if any other person was involved witnesses would have definitely spoken about him. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that all the accused persons have participated in the incident. The defence plea of alibi has not found favour. It has also been found that the prosecution case is proved against the accused persons with the aid of Section 149 IPC. All the accused sharing the common object have participated in the incident. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that prosecution is basically based on the testimony of eye-witnesses. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant none of the witnesses as has been relied upon by the trial Court are worthy of credence. Assailing the testimony of PW. All the accused sharing the common object have participated in the incident. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that prosecution is basically based on the testimony of eye-witnesses. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant none of the witnesses as has been relied upon by the trial Court are worthy of credence. Assailing the testimony of PW. 1 Jai Narain learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that this witness in his statement states that while he was returning from his field when he reached near the house of Ramjilal, he saw that the accused persons were armed with different weapons. All the accused persons were assaulting Dhanpat. Dhanpat was lying on the ground and he was being given merciless beating. Thereafter, the accused pursued deceased Satveer and injured Gopal. Gopal entered into the house of Ramjilal. Satveer entered into the house of Mehetab Singh. All the accused followed him there and surrounding him, they gave injuries to Satveer thereafter this witness states that Gopal came out of the house where he had gone earlier, he saw at that point of time that he had injuries on his left side of the body and on the head. Learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the testimony of this witness stated that the prosecution story as narrated in the First Information Report goes to show that the assault was started by the accused persons by first be-labouring injured Gopal. It was only after causing injuries to the injured Gopal that deceased Satveer and Dhanpat arrived on the scene of occurrence to rescue Gopal. When these two persons intervened accused persons assaulted them. The story given by the injured witness Gopal in the first Information Report is not in the sequence in which PW. 1 Jai Narain describes the incident and therefore, version of PW. 1 Jai Narain is not in conformity with the version given by the injured Gopal. 11. According to witness PW. 1 Jai Narain he first saw the accused assaulting Dhanpat then he saw Satveer and Gopal at that time, injuries of Gopal had not been described by him. When Gopal subsequently appeared then this witness had noticed injuries on his person. This is not the prosecution version as given by the injured first informant PW. 2 Gopal in his statement of the First Information report. When Gopal subsequently appeared then this witness had noticed injuries on his person. This is not the prosecution version as given by the injured first informant PW. 2 Gopal in his statement of the First Information report. Thus, this witness has tried to give a version which is not in conformity with the prosecution case itself . Learned Counsel for the appellant further stressed that this witness has not known the identity of two lady accused persons Smt. Vidhya and Smt. Kamlesh. He says that his wife informed him about these two ladies but in his police statement he has not given these details. Though in his police statement Exhibit D-1 these details are not there, he claims that he had informed police about it. His police statement Exhibit D-1 also omits to make a mention that all the accused persons were assaulting Dhanpat when he reached near the house of Ramjilal. Thus, there is a significant omission in the statement of this witness regarding the participation of all the accused persons qua Dhanpat. 12. According to this witness in cross-examination when deceased Dhanpat was being assaulted by the accused then Gopal and Satveer came. When they saw Dhanpat in injured condition they got threatened, and rushed towards the house of Ramjilal. He further asserts that when Satveer and Dhanpat wanted to escape the accused followed them. Learned Counsel for the appellant further stressed that this witness claims to have seen the assault for the first time when he was around 200-300 pawandas away where he heard the cries. This makes a distance of his presence when he heard shouts around 1000-1500 ft. He claims that he saw the accused from 15 pawandas meaning thereby he took time to travel once 185 pawandas to 285 pawandas i.e., quite a distance and, therefore, it was not possible for him to see the actual occurrence. That speaks for his claim in the police statement Exhibit D-1 that Dhanpat fell down by "Dhakka-Mukki". He dis-owns this portion of police statement as given in Exhibit D-1. He further stated in his cross examination that when he left the scene of occurrence thereafter till the date of his examination police had not met him. If this statement of this witness is true then there was no question of this witness being examined by police. His statement Exhibit D-1 is thus a concoction of the police. He further stated in his cross examination that when he left the scene of occurrence thereafter till the date of his examination police had not met him. If this statement of this witness is true then there was no question of this witness being examined by police. His statement Exhibit D-1 is thus a concoction of the police. 13. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, statement of this prosecution witness was recorded in Court again after the inclusion of accused Smt. Vidhya and Smt. Kamlesh. In his second statement he states that while he reached near the house of Ramjilal, he saw that the accused were assaulting Dhanpat and Satveer. Dhanpat was drenched in blood. They followed Satveer, when he entered in the house of Mehetab. In second examination-in-chief he omits stating about injuries of Gopal. Rather the interesting feature is that in his examination-in-chief he has not even spoken a word about the presence of Gopal while the assault was being by the accused. This shows the fickleness of mind of this witness. He wants that his version should be accepted notwithstanding the fact that it suffers from inherent weakness. He dis-owns his police statement wherein he had stated accused Rajesh had lathi in his hand. He further dis-owns his police statement alleging that the deceased Satveer and Dhanpat had lathies. In Court he states that they never had any arm. Thus, learned Counsel for the appellant emphasis that this witness has given entirely new version of the prosecution story which is not in conformity with the prosecution case as made out in Exhibit P-65, FIR. It is not open to the prosecution to make out a case which is different then the original version. So much so that this witness has omitted the name of injured Gopal in his second statement. According to first information report the assault was started within the hitting of Gopal. First Gopal was beaten up by the accused person. The story of beating of Gopal is not spoken by this witness in his second Court statement. In first statement he states that Gopal was beaten after Satveer was assaulted. The evidence of the witness is of no consequence because he has the tendency of changing his version. 14. This witness has claimed to be at a distance of 1000-1500 ft when he is alleged to have heard the cries. In first statement he states that Gopal was beaten after Satveer was assaulted. The evidence of the witness is of no consequence because he has the tendency of changing his version. 14. This witness has claimed to be at a distance of 1000-1500 ft when he is alleged to have heard the cries. Then he says that he saw the occurrence from 15 pawandas i.e., about 75 ft. It is impossible that at a distance of 1000-1500 ft he could hear the cries. Thereafter he claims to have traveled a distance of about 1000 to 1500 ft after hearing the cries. Because he says that he saw occurrence from 15 pawandas. He has traveled 185 to 285 pawandas there after he saw the assault. It sounds to be a difficult proposition. This witness also dis-owns his earlier police statement. Thus, according to learned Counsel for the appellant this witness is not worthy of credence. 15. Learned Counsel for the appellant then stressed that injured eye witness Gopal also falls in the same category that of PW. 1 Jai Narain. According to this injured eye-witness while he had gone for getting wheat floor made he was confronted with the accused persons. They assaulted him with an intention of finishing him. He only sustain four injuries, the nature of injuries is not of serious nature. When Satveer and Dhanpat intervened then he was left and they were be laboured and done to death. Learned Counsel for the appellant stressed that having started assault with Gopal it would not be possible to divert to other interveners. Infact Gopal was the first target. If he has been let off with four insignificant injuries only then the version given by the prosecution cannot be said to be one which is correct. Here learned Counsel for the appellant emphasis that there are injuries on the person of the accused persons. 16. According to witness PW. 2 Gopal the injures sustained by the accused were not inflicted by them. It does not appear to be a probability. This witness further pleads ignorance about the nature of injuries sustained by Dhanpat. He admits that he cannot tell as to who caused injuries to him. Similarly, he has not described the manner in which Satveer has sustained injuries. 2 Gopal the injures sustained by the accused were not inflicted by them. It does not appear to be a probability. This witness further pleads ignorance about the nature of injuries sustained by Dhanpat. He admits that he cannot tell as to who caused injuries to him. Similarly, he has not described the manner in which Satveer has sustained injuries. According to this witness in his second statement when Satveer and Dhanpat joined and accused started assaulting, he ran away and he saw the accused assaulting these persons when he turned around and saw the incident. He claimed that at that time he saw witnesses Jai Narain and Mehetab standing there. 17. He gives the occurrence time only for two-three minutes. 2-3 minutes is too small a time to permit the other witness to see the incident. He states that after he sustained injuries and he ran away and he entered into house of Ramjilal. He also closed the door. It is unbelievable that after entering into the house of Ramjilal this witness could see the actual assault. This witness is not supported by PW. 1 Jai Narain in details given by him regarding the incident. He establishes the presence of witness PW. 1 Jai Narain who according to the learned counsel for the appellant was not an eye-witness. This witness has the tendency of introducing false eye-witnesses. It is a very dangerous preposition. 18. Apart from introducing Jai Narain as an eye-witness, he claims that Mehetab was also there. If the prosecution names a false witness as an eye-witness then it sands condoned. If such witness does not support the prosecution case then prosecution stands condoned. PW. 19 Mehetab Singh having not supported the prosecution there is no corroboration of the facts as narrated by the prosecution witness PW. 2 Gopal. As prosecution witnesses PW. 19 Mehetab Singh and PW. 1 Jai Narain is not worthy of any credence in absence of any corroboration available of the testimony of PW. 2 Gopal who remains to be the only eye-witness of the incident. The Court will certainly look for independent corroboration more particularly when it is found that the accused themselves have sustained the injuries and prosecution refuses to owe responsibility for these injuries. 19. It can be said that when there is an incident of causing injuries to PW. 2 Gopal who remains to be the only eye-witness of the incident. The Court will certainly look for independent corroboration more particularly when it is found that the accused themselves have sustained the injuries and prosecution refuses to owe responsibility for these injuries. 19. It can be said that when there is an incident of causing injuries to PW. 2 Gopal, Satveer and Dhanpat intervened with arm as admitted by PW. 1 Jai Narain before police in his statement Exhibit D-1, then it becomes a case where both the parties assaulted each other. If it was a case where both the parties took law in their hand then it was a case of free fight. Aid of Section 149 I.P.C. to import the element of common object cannot be said to be available to the prosecution to convict all the accused persons. In that eventuality individual participation will have to be looked into, which is not coming forward. Witness PW. 2 Gopal in his cross-examination has stated that he is not in a position to state as to which of the accused caused which injury. Thus, description of the injuries are not available in the statement of the eye-witnesses. Aid of Section 149, IPC, is not available because both the parties assaulted each other and it is difficult to sustain the conviction as has been recorded by the trial Court. 20. We have considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor and Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material available on record. 21. The narration of facts given by the PW. 1 Jai Narain shows that when he saw the incident, Dhanpat was the first victim. Then he saw the other two victims Gopal and Satveer. At that point of time Gopal has not been said to have any injuries. This narraion of witness PW. 1 Jai Narain does not fit in the facts as made out in the First Information Report. If Gopal was not seen by this witness in the injured condition then it can safely be concluded that he was not a witness of occurrence. According to the basic prosecution story, Gopal sustained injuries in the first place but this witness has chosen to say that when he saw Dhanpat was being beaten up then he saw Satveer and Gopal. According to the basic prosecution story, Gopal sustained injuries in the first place but this witness has chosen to say that when he saw Dhanpat was being beaten up then he saw Satveer and Gopal. At that point of time, Gopal had no injuries. This version cuts across claim of the prosecution that it was Gopal who was first given injuries and thereafter when Satveer and Dhanpat intervened, accused left Gopal and assaulted the other intervening two persons which is not the case deposed by this witness. His story becomes more doubtful when he states that he heard the cries at a distance of 200-300 pawandas which correspond to 1000-1500 ft. Traveling this much of distance and then watching the actual assault does not appear to be a probable circumstance. When this improbability is examined in the background that this witness in own police statement Exhibit D-1 has stated that Dhanpat fell down in Dhhaka-Mukki. The statement which he has disowned before the trial shows that this witness tried to make up with the prosecution case and has no regard to his earlier statement. So much so, this witness has stated that after the incident, police never met him. If this statement of this witness is true then, how his statement Exhibit D-1 came on record has not been explained by this witness. Further this witness has not named Gopal, the first injured of the incident in his examination-in-chief when his statement was recorded in the Court second time. This shows that this witness has not known the actual facts of the incident. This makes his presence doubtful. This witness further resiled from his police statement wherein he assigned lathi to the accused Rajesh so also he disowned his statement that deceased Dhanpat and Satveer had lathi. In the background presence injuries on person of the accused this denial assumes importance. Injuries to the accused thus deserve attention. If the deceased had lathi, admittedly they intervened when Gopal was being assaulted, then inference of the trial Court that injuries being insignificant, could be self inflicted, cannot be countenanced. 22. We are of the opinion that PW .1 Jai Narain is not a witness of truth. This bring us to the testimony of PW . 2 Gopal, who is an injured eye-witness. According to his statement while he had gone to get the wheat grinded, accused persons assaulted him. 22. We are of the opinion that PW .1 Jai Narain is not a witness of truth. This bring us to the testimony of PW . 2 Gopal, who is an injured eye-witness. According to his statement while he had gone to get the wheat grinded, accused persons assaulted him. Then Dhanpat and Satveer came and intervened and accused left this witness and assaulted these two persons. The pronounced intention of the accused persons from the start was to assault Gopal. Thereafter on the intervention of Dhanpat and Satveer, attention of the accused persons got diverted to these two persons. 23. According to PW . 2 Gopal, when he was being beaten, Dhanpat and Satveer arrived there and then he made his escape good and he entered into the house of Ramjilal and closed the door. This shows that there was hardly any occasion available with this witness to have noticed as to how the accused persons assaulted deceased. In his statement he has stated that he is not in a position to tell as to which specific injury was caused by a particular accused. This leaves us to a point where it cannot be concluded as to who is the author of a specific injury and the case becomes in the nature of presumption that when all these accused persons were there, they must have caused the injuries. But the testimony of this witness does not lead us to any exactitude and only leaves us on a point where he states that when these two persons intervened, he made his escape good, he went into the house of Ramjilal and closed the door. From the testimony of this witness it is not possible to conclude the manner of assault by the accused persons. 24. Since, the testimony of PW . 2 Gopal is insufficient to throw light on the manner of assault, we are left with one pointer that when the two deceased persons Dhanpat and Satveer intervened, he was left and the accused started beating deceased. If at all any thing can be concluded by this narration then it can be said that on the spur of moment when the deceased wanted to rescue Gopal then the accused assaulted deceased. No circumstance is available indicating that the accused could form a common object at the inception to assault the deceased. If at all any thing can be concluded by this narration then it can be said that on the spur of moment when the deceased wanted to rescue Gopal then the accused assaulted deceased. No circumstance is available indicating that the accused could form a common object at the inception to assault the deceased. Fastening of vicarious liability appears to be a remote possibility. Section 149 IPC thus cannot be imported to fasten the liabilities on the head of these accused persons. 25. There are injuries on the person of the accused. These injuries have not been explained by the prosecution witnesses. Prosecution witness PW. 1 Jai Narain having stated in his police statement that the deceased had lathi in their hand had resiled from his statement. Thus, how the assault started with these two deceased persons is not coming forward correctly before us. If at all any pointer is available to lead us to conclude then this shows that the deceased had intervened to rescue Gopal. If force was used by the deceased and some injuries were caused to the deceased then, case of vicarious liability cannot be construed and each accused has to be made liable for the injury which he caused. From the evidence it is not possible to conclude as to who caused particular injury. Evidence of PW. 1 Jai Narain and PW. 2 Gopal is not sufficient enough to particularise any of the injuries of the deceased. Case of vicarious liability is not made out. We are left in dark about the part played by a particular accused. 26. In view of the fact of the injuries on the accused persons there could be a right of private defence available to the accused. Particularisation of the part is not possible then fastening the liability of the accused person becomes a tough task and in this background it is not possible from the material available on record to establish as to which injury was caused by a particular accused. This creates doubt about the participation of all the accused persons in the manner as described by the prosecution witnesses. 27. PW . 2 Gopal has tried to introduce two witnesses as eye-witnesses in the shape of PW .1 Jai Narain and PW. 19 Mehteb Singh. Mehteb Singh has not supported the prosecution case. Jai N