Judgment 1. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of six accused persons. These six accused persons are out of the 16 accused persons who were tried by the trial Court. Out of these 16 accused, three died during the trial. 13 were tried. Seven have been acquitted and six accused have been convicted as under:- Offences Punishment Section 302/149, IPC Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-in default of payment of fine, one months S.I. Section 436/149, IPC Three years R.I with fine of Rs. 100/-in default of payment of fine, seven days S.I. Section 449, IPC Three years R.I with fine of Rs. 100/-in default of payment of fine, seven days S.I. Section 323/149, IPC Six months S.I. Section 325/149, IPC One year S.I 2.The prosecution was initiated on the basis of a first information report by injured Bhala Singh. The report was recorded on the basis of the statement given by this witness on 18.05.1987 to SHO Suratgarh Abdul Aziz. In the first information report, as many as 19 persons were named. Out of these, sixteen were subject matter of this trial. Three having died, thirteen were tried and in a subsequent trial, two accused persons Mahendra and Gurdeep Singh were tried. One accused Jarnail Singh was sent to the Juvenile Court for trial. .3. In the first information report, injured Bhala Singh stated that Sheelo D/o Jagtar Singh was married with Gurdev Singh of Satirwala. Two months before, she left the company of her husband and started living with Tara Singh as wife. On this Jagtar Singh and others started keeping grudge against them. On 18.07.1987 at about 6:00 p.m, while Tara Singh, Kamba, his mother Sarwan Kaur, Basant Kaur, his wife, his sister were at home and Sheelo was also at home, the accused persons Pritam Singh, Jeeta Singh, Billu Singh alias Bishan Singh sons of Jagtar Singh, Jagtar Singh, Kaili Singh, Resham Singh, Harbans Singh, Tehal Singh, Puran Singh, Mehendra Singh, Jang Singh, Jarnail Singh, Gurdev Singh, Mithu Singh, Mahendra Singh s/o Jang Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Jeeto Bai, Vimla, wife of Harbans came armed with various weapons like swords, Gandasi and lathis. Fire arms were also with them. They made fire and charge towards the courtyard. They entered into the room and closed the door. After breaking open the door, they dragged Sheelo out and started causing injuries. Fire arms were also with them. They made fire and charge towards the courtyard. They entered into the room and closed the door. After breaking open the door, they dragged Sheelo out and started causing injuries. She has sustained injuries on head, hands and legs. Wife of the complainant Baljeet Kaur also received injuries. In the process, Tara Singh, Kamba Singh his mother Sarwan Kaur and Sheelo sustained many injuries. While the accused were fleeing, they burned down their house. During night, the injured were .not taken to the hospital. Early in the morning, the injured were taken to the hospital. On their way, Tara Singh succumbed to his injuries. According to this witness, Keli gave a sword blow on his head, Harbans gave a Gandasi blow and Pritam Singh gave a lathi blow on him. Mithu Singh inflicted injury of his left leg. Tara Singh, his mother and Kamba Singh were also inflicted injuries by these persons. .4. On the basis of this statement, FIR No. 106/87 was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, Sarwan Kaur mother of Bahal Singh also died. During the investigation, the accused were arrested. Few of them were absconding. Charge-sheet was filed under Section 299, CrPC and later on, all of them were arrested and thereafter, the trial proceeded against the sixteen accused persons, out of which 13 were ultimately tried because three persons died during the trial. Two other accused persons were tried in a subsequent trial and one of the accused was sent to Juvenile Court. During the trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and Exhibited-72 documents. The accused did not produce any defence witness. However, three documents were exhibited as defence documents. Tara Singh, deceased had sustained the following injuries:- 1. Incised wound over Left Parieto occipital area of Scalp, obliquely directed, measuring 2" x ¼ x bone deep. Clotted blood present. 2. Incised wound 2" x ¼ x bone deep over left frontal area of scalp, Transversely directed with blackening of left eye. Clotted blood present. 3. Incised wound 1 ¾" x ¼ " x 0.2", Posterouly of Left parietal area of scalp. Clotted blood present. 4. Incised wound 1 ½" x ¼" x ¼ outer aspect. Clotted blood present. Middle of Left upper arm. Transversely directed. 5. Incised wound 1 ¼" x ?" x ½" overhime area of left buttock. Clotted blood present. 6. 3. Incised wound 1 ¾" x ¼ " x 0.2", Posterouly of Left parietal area of scalp. Clotted blood present. 4. Incised wound 1 ½" x ¼" x ¼ outer aspect. Clotted blood present. Middle of Left upper arm. Transversely directed. 5. Incised wound 1 ¼" x ?" x ½" overhime area of left buttock. Clotted blood present. 6. Abrasion 2" x ¾" (Irregular) Right shoulder tamb. 5. The trial Court has proceeded to examine whether all the accused can be impleaded for the injuries caused to the two deceased and three injured. PW. 1 Bhala Singh is the real brother of Tara Singh. He has been declared hostile. He in his statement has deposed against the accused Mithu Singh, Gurdev Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Dangi Singh, Mahendra Singh and Mahendra Singh II. According to this witness, they were armed with lathis and Gandasi. They also held those crackers which are required for killing the pigs. No sooner they came, they started giving injuries to Tara Singh. He was hit on head by sword. While his mother wanted to rescue, she was also inflicted injuries. Thereafter, they inflicted injuries to this witness also. While he was cross-examined, he stated that to police also, he had given names of six persons whom he had named above. The name of other accused persons were given by Karnail Singh in the hospital. This witness was very positive and stated that only those persons came to the house, whose names he has given. He in his cross-examination has admitted that Sheelo was not sister of Mahendra Singh, Mithu Singh and Gurdeep Singh. He also speaks about the Panchayat which was held in relation to Sheelo. Thus, according to the statement of this witness, out of 19 persons named in the first information report, he only attributed injuries and participation to six accused persons. Rest of the persons were named by Karnail Singh. 6. The trial Court has further noticed the statement of PW. 2 Kamba Singh. He in his statement has named Mithu Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Jangi, Mahendra and Mahendra II. This witness in his statement has also named Gurdeep Singh and Mahendra named by PW. 1 Bhala Singh. According to this witness, all these accused persons came together in the house out of which Mithu Singh exhorted that today they will not be spared. He in his statement has named Mithu Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Jangi, Mahendra and Mahendra II. This witness in his statement has also named Gurdeep Singh and Mahendra named by PW. 1 Bhala Singh. According to this witness, all these accused persons came together in the house out of which Mithu Singh exhorted that today they will not be spared. Thereafter, Bhala Singh was assaulted and thereafter, this witness was assaulted. Mithu Singh gave blow on the leg of Bhala Singh. Other persons gave lathi blows. Gurdeep Singh gave a Gandasi blow on thigh of Tara Singh. One injury was given by Mithu Singh and one by Mahendra. Gurdeep Singh, Mahendra Singh and Gurdev Singh inflicted injuries on his hands. He made his escape good while the accused were giving beatings to Tara Singh. This witness has also not named any person other than these persons. 7. PW. 7 Mado states that while she her mother-in-law, her son, Basant Kaur, Tara Singh, Bhala Singh and Veero were home, at that time Jagtar Singh, Billu Singh, Jeet Singh, Preeti Singh, Vimla, Jeeto, Rani, Resham Singh, Tehal Singh, Jangir Singh, Mahendra Singh, Mithu Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Gurdev Singh, Mahendra Singh came and they inflicted injuries. 8. PW. 9 Baljeet Kaur in her statement has stated that while they were at their house alongwith other persons, accused Pritam Singh, Kesi, Mithu Singh, Jeet Singh, Jagtar Singh, Mithu Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Mahendra Singh, Gurdev Singh, Mahendra Singh, Jangir Singh, Karnail Singh, Jeeto Bai, Vimla came. They had fire arms, Gandasi, lathis, Saila and sword. When they fired, they entered into their house and they were dragged out and given beating. According to the trial Court, four eye-witnesses referred to hereinabove had given information regarding the accused persons. The trial Court had noted that PW. 1 Bhala Singh and PW. 2 Kamba Singh had named six accused persons. PW. 7 Mado has named about 16 persons and PW. 9 Baljeet Kaur has named 14 persons. It has been noticed that there is variance in the statement of eye-witnesses and they give different number of assailant. The whole incident was in relation to Sheelo. She was injured but the prosecution has not cared to produce her as a witness. One of the most important witnesses of the prosecution has not been produced. PW. It has been noticed that there is variance in the statement of eye-witnesses and they give different number of assailant. The whole incident was in relation to Sheelo. She was injured but the prosecution has not cared to produce her as a witness. One of the most important witnesses of the prosecution has not been produced. PW. 7 Mado was not named in the First Information Report and her presence has also not been deposed by PW. 1 Bhala Singh and PW. 2 Kamba Singh. PW. 9 Baljeet Kaur has also not supported her presence. In the aforesaid background, it was contested that she was not even the witness present. The trial Court has not believed the presence of PW. 7 Mado. 9. The trial Court has given credence to the statement of Bhala Singh, Kamba Singh and Baljeet Kaur. The trial Court has noticed that as far as the accused Harbansh, Resham Singh, Tehal Singh, Rani and Puran Singh are concerned, they have not been named by any one of the three witnesses Bhala Singh, Kamba Singh and Baljeet Kaur. Their presence has not been accepted. Accused Mithu Singh, Gurdeep Singh and Jangi Singh were the assailants. Their participation has been held to be proved. Regarding rest of the accused persons, namely, Pritam Singh, Jeet Singh, Bishan Singh, Jagtar Singh, Vimla and Jeeto Bai, only PW. 9 Baljeet Kaur gives direct evidence of their participation. This witness in her cross-examination has stated that in all, 60-70 persons came for beating. She stated that she had recognised the accused persons while they entered into courtyard. While naming the accused persons, Jeet Singh, Vimla and Jeeto Bai have not been deposed to have been identified in her cross-examination. She has stated that Jeeto Bai had a 5 litre container in her hand but such statement was not in her police statement Exhibit D/3. PW. 1 Bhala Singh has assigned diesel container to Gurdev Singh, therefore, the trial Court came to the conclusion that three accused person Jeet Singh, Vimla and Jeeto Bai had not entered the house. PW. 9 Baljeet Kaur described about the person who had entered the house. The trial Court has observed that even if these accused persons had come to the house of the injured complainants, then having not entered into the house, they cannot be said to have participated in the incidence. PW. 9 Baljeet Kaur described about the person who had entered the house. The trial Court has observed that even if these accused persons had come to the house of the injured complainants, then having not entered into the house, they cannot be said to have participated in the incidence. So far as the statement of witnesses are concerned, regarding accused Bishan Singh and Jagtar Singh, their participation has been accepted because that has been corroborated by Exhibit P/1. These accused have caused the incident. The investigating officer has got the weapons of offence recovered from these accused and, therefore, the trial Court came to the conclusion that recoveries corroborate their participation. In the conclusion, the trial Court has concluded that during the course of incident. Mithu Singh, Jangir Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Pritam Singh, Bishan Singh, Jagtar Singh constituted an unlawful assembly and having entered into the house, they caused injuries to Tara Singh, Sarwan Kaur, Bhala Singh, Kamba Singh and Baljeet Kaur. These accused persons have been convicted as aforesaid and rest of the accused persons were acquitted. 10. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused appellant asserted that the prosecution has not been fair. The complainant himself has admitted that he in his first information report had only named six persons and rest of the accused persons were named by one Karnail Singh. If the number of accused persons is inflated at whims by some person other than the complainant, then the exaggeration made by the prosecution crosses the limit of simple embroidery. What resultantly comes out is a total mess and in this view of the matter, the prosecution stands self-condemned. 11. Learned Counsel further asserted that in this case the story circles around Smt. Sheelo. According to the prosecution witnesses, she is an injured person. She has not been produced by the prosecution. Withholding of Sheelo conceals that material part of the prosecution which would have been necessary to unfold the nicety of the prosecution case. Sheelo was the lady for whom the dispute started. She was an injured witness. Her non-examination is fatal to the prosecution. The manner of occurrence has also been tampered with by the prosecution. According to the prosecution version, all the accused entered into the house and inflicted injuries. Sheelo was the lady for whom the dispute started. She was an injured witness. Her non-examination is fatal to the prosecution. The manner of occurrence has also been tampered with by the prosecution. According to the prosecution version, all the accused entered into the house and inflicted injuries. In the improved version, it was stated that few of the persons remained out of the house and only six came in. If the prosecution is given this kind of liberty to change the prosecution version at its will, then one cannot expect that it is in the fairness of things, the prosecution has come out with a legitimate case. 12. The trial Court has acquitted the accused Jeet Singh, Harbansh Singh, Resham Singh, Tahal Singh, Mst. Rani, Mst. Vimla, Jeeto Bai. Against them few of the witnesses have given positive statements of participation by assigning their role to be omnibus. That situation takes away the prosecution to a stage where such accused have been acquitted by the trial Court. This infirmity of the prosecution creates confusion as they have also been assigned omnibus participation. If participation was alleged on the acquitted accused persons, then the present appellants also deserve same kind of treatment and in that view of the matter, the case of the prosecution is suffering from self-condemnation. 13. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a case of injured eye-witnesses deposing against the accused. There is no reason why injured eye-witnesses will frame a wrong case against the accused persons. All the injured persons have implicated the appellants and if there was some wrong inclusion of the accused persons, then it cannot be said that the prosecution case is not proved. 14. We have given our thoughtful consideration and have perused the record. In our considered opinion. Sheelo was the most important witness because it was for her that the whole incident has occurred. Had she been produced, she could have unfold the true events of the incident. Having withheld her, prosecution has condemned itself . Her non-production has prohibited the prosecution to establish its facts as they were required to be placed before the Court. The prosecution story has not come before the Court as it should have come. 15. It is not only the non-production of Sheelo that true story has not come before the Court. The prosecution witnesses PW . Her non-production has prohibited the prosecution to establish its facts as they were required to be placed before the Court. The prosecution story has not come before the Court as it should have come. 15. It is not only the non-production of Sheelo that true story has not come before the Court. The prosecution witnesses PW . 1 Bhala Ram, the first informant himself has admitted that he had only given names of six accused persons i.e., the present appellants in the FIR other names were incorporated by Karnail Singh. Thus, the prosecution itself has admitted that the prosecution case has been inflated by such persons who had some interest in incorporating innocent people. Karnail Singh has also not been produced so as to clarify the position as to why he named persons other than named by the first informant and thus, another important witness who is alleged to have named number of persons as accused falsely have not been produced by the prosecution. His non-production has also prejudiced the defence. The defence has not been able to make out as to why Karnail Singh named person falsely. It can further be observed that the similarly situated accused persons who have been named by the prosecution witnesses to have participated in the crime have been acquitted. Their acquittal casts a shadow on the truthfulness of the eye- witnesses because the eye-witnesses otherwise do not inspire confidence because there had been a consistent effort on the part of the prosecution to falsely implicate the accused persons and Baljit Kaur PW . 9 may be referred to herein, where this lady has deposed against 14 accused persons whereas, PW . 1 and PW . 2 have only deposed against six. Thus, the prosecution had admitted to name as many accused persons as it could. It would be worthwhile to note that the prosecution has produced witness PW . 7 Mado who has deposed against all the accused appellants at the trial. This shows that the prosecution has no regard for truth and it has been naming innocent people to be accused persons. 16. If the treatment of evidence of the eye-witnesses is seen as given by the trial Court, we find that the witnesses have tried to construct a case which was not originally set up and if that is done, then the prosecution stands self -condemned. 16. If the treatment of evidence of the eye-witnesses is seen as given by the trial Court, we find that the witnesses have tried to construct a case which was not originally set up and if that is done, then the prosecution stands self -condemned. In view of the fact that the prosecution has tried to implicate as many accused persons who were admittedly not the participants, then conviction of six accused persons out of sixteen tried do not appear to be a justifiable proposition and in this process, we find that falsehood has been too intricately mixed with the prosecution case that it is not possible to separate chaff from the grain and, therefore, the whole prosecution case deserves to be rejected in its entirety. 17. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the accused appellants have not been rightly convicted by the trial Court. The charges on the basis of evidence produced on record are not established. They deserve to be acquitted. The appeal is, therefore, accepted. The appellants Pritam Singh, Bishan Singh, Jagtar Singh, Mithu Singh, Jangir Singh and Gurdeep Singh are acquitted of the charges against them. The sentences are also set aside. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Accused Mahendra Singh, Puran Singh and Karnail Singh being dead, no orders are required to be passed in relation to them