Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This appeal has been brought against the judgment of conviction dated 10th of June, 1997 and order of sentence dated 13th of June, 1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sonepat, against Ram Dhari son of Chhatru, aged 54 years, Suresh son of Zulfi, aged 32 years, Ram Kumar son of Chhatru, aged 49 years and Raju son of Ram Narain, aged 26 years. The said appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, RI for two years, and under Section 148 IPC to undergo RI for a period of one year each. Zulfi was another accused in the case who expired during the pendency of the trial on 23rd of September, 1995. 2. The prosecution case is that Dr. Labh Singh (PW-3) sent ruqa (Ex.PC/2) on 5th of February, 1993 to Police Post, General Hospital, Sonepat with regard to admittance of Satbir son of Surja (complainant, PW-S) at 10.20 PM. On the said ruqa, statement of Surja son of Bakson was recorded as Ex. PH by ASI Ram Avtar (PW-12) on the doctor declaring Satbir unable to give his statement. The writing was sent to the police station for registration of the case under offences under Sections 308/506 IPC at 3.15 AM on 6th of February, 1993. Resultantly, FIR bearing No. 35 was registered in Police Station, Sadar Sonepat at 6.30 AM. The report was received by the ACJM on 8th of February, 1993 at 11.50 AM. 3. The FIR case is that while the complainant (Surja, PW-5, labourer) was standing with his nephew Sahab Singh in the street near the house of Ran Singh son of Lehri, Ram Dhari son of Chhatru was also standing with them. At about 8.30 PM, they (Surja, PW-5 and Sahab Singh, PW6) asked Ram Dhari that Raju son of Ram Narain who was staying with him (Ram Dhari) was a quarrelsome person and, therefore, he should be sent home as he had quarrelled with Balwan @ Ballu son of Sahab Singh of the village earlier. In the meantime, Satbir came there and Ram Dhari abused them. He (Ram Dhari) warned them of dire consequences and defied them by saying that he would not send Raju back to his home. In the meantime, Satbir came there and Ram Dhari abused them. He (Ram Dhari) warned them of dire consequences and defied them by saying that he would not send Raju back to his home. On this, there was an exchange of abuses between Satbir (son of Surja, PW-5) and Ram Dhari. Zulfi son of Chhatru, Suresh son of Zulfi and Ram Kumar son of Chhatru approached the complainant party armed with Lathies and said that they were going to teach Satbir a lesson for abusing. It is the specific case of the complainant that thereupon Zulfi gave a Lathi blow on the person of Satbir and Satbir fell down. In order to save Satbir, Sahab Singh, PW-6 gave a Lathi blow to Zulfi and Suresh. Zulfi and others left Satbir, and while going they said "today you have been saved, in future we would kill you as and when we get an opportunity". On hearing the noise, many people from the mohalla came there, Surja, PW-5 and Sahab Singh, PW-6 took Satbir in a four wheeler to the hospital where Satbir was given medical aid. It has further been mentioned in the FIR that blood was oozing out from the head, nose and left ear of Satbir. The FIR has been exhibited as Ex.PH/1. 4. The investigation was set in motion. Satbir was referred to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak where he expired on 9th of February, 1993. Accused were challaned under Sections 304/506/34 IPC. Court however charged the accused under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder by intentionally causing death of Satbir against Raju, Ram Dhari, Zulfi, Suresh and Ram Kumar. 5. The medico-legal evidence consists of the statement of Dr. Labh Singh, PW-3 who on 5th of February, 1993 at 10.00 PM, medico-legally examined Satbir son of Surja (complainant) aged 28 years and found a lacerated wound 4 cm x .5 cm bone deep on right parietal region, 2 cms from mid-line. Fresh blood was present. X-ray skull and surgeons opinion were sought. The probable duration of injury was given as six hours and the kind of weapon used was opined as blunt. Ex.PC is the carbon copy of MLR and Ex.PC/1 is the diagram showing the seat of injury. No fracture was detected. Dr. Fresh blood was present. X-ray skull and surgeons opinion were sought. The probable duration of injury was given as six hours and the kind of weapon used was opined as blunt. Ex.PC is the carbon copy of MLR and Ex.PC/1 is the diagram showing the seat of injury. No fracture was detected. Dr. Labh Singh, PW-3 has further testified on solemn affirmation that on 5th of February, 1993 at 11.00 PM, Zulfi son of Chhatru was medico-legally examined and found one lacerated wound 3 cm x .2 cm on right side of forehead with fresh bleeding present. Wound was found muscle deep, X-ray skull and surgeons opinion were sought. The second injury found on the person of Zulfi son of Chhatru is stated to be a lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 5 cm on little finger of left hand. Bone was found exposed through the wound and fresh blood was present. X-ray left hand and orthopaedics surgeons opinion were sought. Both the injuries were found to have been caused within six hours and the weapon used was opined as blunt. Ex.PD is the exhibited copy of MLR of Zulfi. The same witness i.e. PW-3, Dr. Labh Singh medico-legally examined Suresh son of Zulfi, aged 32 years who was found having a defused swelling on the right hand alongwith lacerated wound 1 cm x .2 cm on dorsum of right hand between ring and little finger. The injury was kept under observation to await the X-ray report and the orthopaedics surgeons opinion. Probable duration of the injury was within six hours and the kind of weapon used was opined as blunt. The MLR of Suresh son of Zulfi has been exhibited as Ex.PD. Dr. Labh Singh, PW-3 sent ruqa to Police Post, General Hospital, Sonepat vide Ex.PF with regard to the admission of Zulfi and Suresh injured in General Hospital, Sonepat. The injury on the person of Satbir deceased has been stated to be as a result of Lathi blow in the opinion of the doctor. It has further been stated that after medico-legal examination, Satbir was referred to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. Satbir was unconscious throughout the period while he stayed in the hospital at Sonepat. The injuries on the person of Suresh and Zulfi are also stated to be possible with Lathi. 6. The other part of medico-legal evidence consists of Dr. It has further been stated that after medico-legal examination, Satbir was referred to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. Satbir was unconscious throughout the period while he stayed in the hospital at Sonepat. The injuries on the person of Suresh and Zulfi are also stated to be possible with Lathi. 6. The other part of medico-legal evidence consists of Dr. Hitesh Malhotra, PW-2 who is a Radiologist and examined Satbir radiologically. The X-ray report is Ex PB/1. As per the opinion of the Radiologist. Dr. Hitesh Malhotra, PW-2, no fracture was seen. 7. The other part of the medico-legal evidence consists of the statement of Dr. A.P. Sharma, PW-1 who on 10th of February, 1993 at 1.00 PM conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Satbir son of Surja. The cause of death in the opinion of the doctor was Coma as a result of head injury which was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The injuries on the person of Satbir deceased have been described as under : "1. There was a superficial crusted abrasion over right thigh, lateral aspect 3 cm x 1 cm at juction of middle and lower third. Clotted blood was present on both nostrils and left ear. 2. There was a lacerated stitched wound in mid-parietal region in the middle, longitudinally placed, slough sero-sangninuous pus was present, 6 cm long. 3. There was a stitch arch shaped semi-circular stitched wound over left fronto temporo parietal region, gluing of skin was present. On dissection - There was a haematoma in subcutaneous places. There was a large haematoma over skull raising scalp in parietal both sides and left temporal region. There was a fracture parallel to mid-line, 2 cm away right side frontal and parietal bones, 6 cm long. Coronal suture was separated. There was a fracture of left parietal bone extending from coronal suture 2 cm parallel to mid-line. There was a fracture of right temporal bone, vertically placed, extending from coronal suture to the base of bone. There was large extra dural haematoma over left temporo parietal region. There was rent in the dural vertically placed 2 cm in parietal region, left side. There was a large subdural haematoma over left side. Brain matter in left side was lacerated and large intra cranial haemorrhage was present in tissues." 8. There was large extra dural haematoma over left temporo parietal region. There was rent in the dural vertically placed 2 cm in parietal region, left side. There was a large subdural haematoma over left side. Brain matter in left side was lacerated and large intra cranial haemorrhage was present in tissues." 8. The carbon copy of PMR has been exhibited as Ex.PA. In cross-examination, PW1, Dr. A.P. Sharma clarified that injury No. 1, Ex.PA could not be a result of the operation or treatment. 9. Dr. Ajit Singh Rathi has appeared as PW-9 who has testified that he was working as Registrar in Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak in February, 1993. He has brought on record police request, Ex.PT whereupon opinion Ex.PT/l was given on 7th of February, 1993. Likewise, police application Ex.PT/2 was made on which opinion Ex.PT/3 was given. Vide Ex.PT/1, the police sought opinion as to whether Satbir in the absence of medical aid in time was likely to die on account of the injury. The doctor in response thereto, gave the opinion vide Ex.PT/1 that the doctor who conducted the medico-legal examination, can give opinion or the operating surgeon can give the opinion. 10. The eye witness account has come by way of statement of Surja son of Bakson who came in the witness box as PW-5 and Sahab Singh, @ Sahbal son of Devi Ram, aged 48 years, PW-6. Both the witnesses have consistently stated that abuses were exchanged between the two parties on the issue of sending Raju, who was staying with Ram Dhari, back to his village. With regard to the incident, Surja (complainant, PW-5) and Sahab Singh (PW-6), the alleged eye witnesses have both stated that Raju was present at the time of incident. Suresh was armed with two Lathies and one of the Lathies was given to Ram Dhari whereafter, Raju, accused-appellant gave a straight blow with Lathi hitting Satbir deceased on the head as a result of which he fell down on the ground. It has further been added by both the witnesses that while Satbir was lying down on the ground, the other accused also gave injuries on the head of Satbir deceased. Sahab Singh, PW-6 is stated to have given injuries with Danda on the person of appellants, Suresh and Zulfi in self-defence. It has further been added by both the witnesses that while Satbir was lying down on the ground, the other accused also gave injuries on the head of Satbir deceased. Sahab Singh, PW-6 is stated to have given injuries with Danda on the person of appellants, Suresh and Zulfi in self-defence. The defence in cross-examination has tried to highlight the contradictions in the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statements made on solemn affirmation in Court. The suggestion given by the defence in cross- examination with regard to the incident is to the effect that Satbir deceased was having a Lathi with him and had gone to the house of Zulfi accused and had given a Lathi blow to him. It is further suggested that in the right of self- defence, Zulfi given a Danda a blow on the person of Satbir. It has been suggested that the occurrence had not taken place in the gali as suggested in the prosecution case. In the cross-examination, it has further been pointed that in the FIR or in the previous statements of the witnesses, Raju has been found present and had not been attributed any role. It has further been pointed out through confrontation that the other accused have not been attributed any injury on the person of Satbir deceased in the previous statements of the witnesses. 11. The other evidence brought on behalf of the prosecution is contained in the statement of Balwan son of Sahab Singh, aged 20 years, who appeared as PW-8. Balwan, PW-8 testified that Raju had quarreled with him about one year before the incident when he (Balwan, PW-8) was eating Mango in the street. It has further been stated by the witness in his examination-in-chief that Raju had followed Balwan and given him beatings. 12. The investigation evidence is contained in the statement of ASI Ram Avtar, PW-12 who on 5th of February, 1993 was posted in Police Post Mohana. On receipt of a V.J. message from Police Station, Sadar Sonepat, the witness (ASI Ram Avtar, PW-12) went to General Hospital, Sonepat. It was on reaching the hospital that ASI Ram Avtar (PW-12) came to know that Satbir injured had been referred to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. On receipt of a V.J. message from Police Station, Sadar Sonepat, the witness (ASI Ram Avtar, PW-12) went to General Hospital, Sonepat. It was on reaching the hospital that ASI Ram Avtar (PW-12) came to know that Satbir injured had been referred to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. The witness, therefore, proceeded to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak and moved an application Ex.PX seeking opinion of the doctor who stated that Satbir was not fit to make the statement vide Ex.PK/1. Since Surja, father of Satbir deceased was present, the statement of Surja, PW-5 was recorded which is exhibited as Ex.PH. FIR Ex.PH/1 was recorded thereupon, whereafter the spot was inspected, blood-stained earth was lifted and site plan of the place of occurrence, Ex.PB was prepared. The witness (ASI Ram Avtar, PW-12) has further stated that on 8th of February, 1993, he again went to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak and sought opinion from the doctor vide Ex.PT/2. On 9th of February, 1993, a V.T. message was received that Satbir had succumbed to his injuries whereupon ASI Ram Avtar, PW-12 again went to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak and prepared inquest report, Ex.PA/1 and got the post mortem examination conducted after filing an application for the said purpose exhibited as Ex.PA/2. Accused Suresh, Ram Kumar and Ram Dhari were arrested by this witness on 11th of February, 1993. Suresh and Ram Kumar on interrogation suffered disclosure statements Ex.PM and Ex.PN, respectively which led to the recovery of Lathies vide recovery memo Ex.PO and Ex.PQ. Zulfi upon arrest on 14th of February, 1993 was interrogated and suffered disclosure statement Ex.PQ/1 which led to the recovery of Lathi which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PQ/3. Suggestion given to the witness (ASI Ram Avtar, PW-12) in cross-examination by the defence counsel is that Satbir deceased alongwith five other persons had attacked Zulfi and Suresh at his house, and Zulfi had caused injury in the right of his private defence to Satbir with Danda. 13. The other witness who needs to be mentioned is SI Same Ram, PW-10 who has testified that on 6th of February, 1993 he was posted as SI/SHO, Police Station, Sadar Sonepat and on receipt of ruqa Ex. PH from ASI Ram Avtar, PW- 12, FIR Ex.PH/1 was recorded under his (SI Same Ram, PW-10) signatures. The investigation was entrusted with this witness i.e. SI Same Ram, PW-10. PH from ASI Ram Avtar, PW- 12, FIR Ex.PH/1 was recorded under his (SI Same Ram, PW-10) signatures. The investigation was entrusted with this witness i.e. SI Same Ram, PW-10. On 14th of March, 1993 and during investigation, arrest of Raju accused was effected on 22nd of March, 1993. During interrogation, Raju suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PR/1 and resultantly got Lathi, Ex.P7 recovered vide recovery memo Ex.PR/2. In the cross-examination, the witness (SI Same Ram, PW10) has stated that a complaint had been received from the higher officers prior to 14th of March, 1993 in connection with the case whereupon the investigation was transferred to him. 14. Kanshi Ram son of Raje Ram, aged 70 years has appeared as PW-7 and stated that on 11th of February, 1993, he alongwith Inder Singh had joined investigation. Statedly the witness was present during the course of interrogation of Suresh accused when disclosure statement Ex.PM was made with regard to concealment of Lathi which was attested by this witness (Kanshi Ram, PW-7). The witness has also testified with regard to the disclosure statement suffered by Ram Kumar accused. The witness (PW-7) has also signed the recovery memos Ex.PO and Ex.PQ with regard to the recovery of Lathies from the said two accused namely Suresh and Ram Kumar. Kanshi Ram, PW-7 also signed the disclosure statement made by Zulfi on 14th of February, 1993 and is also a witness to the recovery memo Ex.PQ/3. The witness has further stated that a letter Ex. PR was submitted to the Chief Minister, Haryana for re- investigation of the case whereafter Raju was challaned by the police. The disclosure statement made by Raju leading to recovery of Lathi vide recovery memo Ex.PR/2 was also signed by this witness (Kanshi Ram, PW-7). 15. The other evidence consists of statement of Anil Kumar, PW-4, Draftsman who prepared the scaled site plan, Ex.PG on the pointing out of Surja, PW-5 and Sahab Singh, PW-6 on 5th of April, 1993. 16. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the material was put to the accused. Accused Ram Dhari in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that he was innocent and on 5th of February, 1993, Satbir alongwith 5-6 persons had come to the house of Zulfi and attacked Zulfi and Suresh causing injuries to them. 16. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the material was put to the accused. Accused Ram Dhari in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that he was innocent and on 5th of February, 1993, Satbir alongwith 5-6 persons had come to the house of Zulfi and attacked Zulfi and Suresh causing injuries to them. Zulfi accused caused injuries to Satbir in his self-defence while he (Ram Dhari) was not present at the time of occurrence. 17. Suresh in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that on 5th of February, 1993 Satbir alongwith 5-6 persons had come to his house and attacked him (Suresh) and his father Zulfi on which Zulfi had caused injuries to Satbir in his self-defence. 18. Raju accused has stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was innocent and on 5th of February, 1993, Satbir alongwith 5-6 persons had come to the house of Zulfi, and attacked Zulfi and Suresh, and caused injuries to them. Zulfi in his self-defence had hit Satbir on his head. Similar is the statement made by Ram Kumar accused. 19. Defence evidence is contained in the statement of Dr. Promilla Jain, DW-1, Radiologist, General Hospital, Sonepat who conducted the radiological examination of Suresh son of Zulfi and found fracture of 5th metal carpal bone. Ex.DD is the carbon copy of the X-ray report, Likewise, Zulfi was radiologically examined by DW-1 Dr. Promilla Jain which did not show any fracture of the skull while X-ray of right hand showed fracture of middle phalanx of little finger. Ex.DE is the X-ray report. 20. Shri Baldev Singh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Sudhir Kumar, Advocate, has argued on behalf of the appellants to the effect that the complainant and alleged eye witness Surja, PW-5 and Sahab Singh, PW-6 respectively are not worthy of belief. In support of the argument, Shri Baldev Singh, learned senior counsel has pointed out towards the FIR, Ex.PH which is the first version given by the alleged eye witness to show that in the statement of Surja, PW-5, the presence of Raju at the site of incident has not been shown. Further it has been argued that Zulfi has specifically been attributed single injury on the person of Satbir deceased. Further it has been argued that Zulfi has specifically been attributed single injury on the person of Satbir deceased. Likewise, it has been argued that in the statement of Surja, PW-5 recorded under Section 175 Cr.P.C.,Ex.DA, presence of Raju does not find mention and further it is the specific case of the witness that "Zulfi hit a Lathi to my son Satbir on the head". 21. It has further been argued on behalf of the appellants that Sahab Singh, PW-6, the other alleged eye witness in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not shown the presence of Raju at the time of incident and only one injury on the person of Satbir has been attributed to Zulfi. Likewise, in the statement of Sahab Singh, PW-6 recorded under Section 175 Cr.P.C. which is duly exhibited as Ex.DC, the presence of Raju does not find mention and the only injury allegedly received by Satbir deceased has been attributed to Zulfi. To buttress the argument further, the learned senior counsel has contended vehemently that the two persons are eye witnesses and knew Raju by name as the name of Raju finds mention as the cause of estrangement between the complainant side and the accused side. It has been pointed out during the course of arguments that the case set up in the FIR is that Zulfi, Suresh and Ram Kumar approached the complainant side armed with Lathies whereafter a lalkara was given and Zulfi caused a Lathi blow on the head of Satbir deceased whereupon Satbir fell down. As against this, the case set up on solemn affirmation in Court by this very witness i.e. Surja, PW-5 is that after an altercation took place between Ram Dhari on one side and Surja and Sahab Singh on the other side, Satbir deceased and Dhanpati arrived in the gali whereafter Ram Dhari raised an alarm and asked his men to bring Lathies. The alarm attracted accused Zulfi, Ram Kumar, Suresh and Raju. Suresh was having two Lathies in his hand whereas the other accused had one Lathi each in their hands. Suresh handed over one Lathi to Ram Dhari accused whereafter Raju gave "a straight blow with Lathi hitting Satbir deceased on his head as a result of which he fell down on the ground. While Satbir was lying on the ground, the other accused also gave injuries on the head of Satbir deceased". Suresh handed over one Lathi to Ram Dhari accused whereafter Raju gave "a straight blow with Lathi hitting Satbir deceased on his head as a result of which he fell down on the ground. While Satbir was lying on the ground, the other accused also gave injuries on the head of Satbir deceased". Sahab Singh, PW-6 has made the statement on similar lines i.e. Raju has been shown present at the site of incident and the fatal blow has been attributed to Raju. The learned counsel contended that the entire texture of incident has been changed in Court for the first time and is in direct contradiction to the previous statements given by these very witnesses in material aspects of the incident which cannot be reconciled or explained. The contradictions materially altered the previous stand and, therefore, the statements of the only two eye witnesses. are not worthy of belief. It has further been argued that while the FIR case is that only one injury was given on the person of Satbir by Zulfi, in Court, for the first time all the accused have been attributed one injury each on the person of Satbir. This, as per the argument of the learned counsel, contradicts the medico-legal aspect of the case and, therefore, even the medico-legal evidence belies the ocular version in so much as Ex.PC/3 i.e. opinion of the doctor reflects that injury No. 2 was caused on account of surgical intervention. It, therefore, transpires that injury No. 2 was not a result of injury caused by the accused-appellants. On the same ground it has been contended that even PW-1 Dr. A.P. Sharma who conducted post mortem examination has opined that the cause of death of Satbir was Coma as a result of head injury. Therefore, we are left only with injury No. 3 as having been caused on account of the Lathi blow, injury No. 1 being a superficial crusted abrasion over the right thigh. There is no material on the record to show that any injury was caused on the thigh of Satbir deceased at any point of time. In any case, it was merely an abrasion and, therefore, cannot be attributed or related to the incident. In cross-examination, Dr. Labh Singh, PW-3 has stated that possibility of injury on the person of Satbir as a result of single blow cannot be ruled out. 22. In any case, it was merely an abrasion and, therefore, cannot be attributed or related to the incident. In cross-examination, Dr. Labh Singh, PW-3 has stated that possibility of injury on the person of Satbir as a result of single blow cannot be ruled out. 22. When faced with the above arguments, the counsel appearing for the State has tried to explain the material contradictions attributing to the old age of the witness namely Surja, PW-5, who is also father of deceased Satbir. It has been contended by the counsel for the State that Surja being an old person and having lost his balance because he lost his son, the discrepancies might have occurred. The learned State counsel has further contended that there are recoveries of Lathies from the accused and initially the investigation was not proper as Raju was not arrested and it was only on account of intervention of Kanshi Ram, PW-7 that the investigation was transferred and Raju was arrested. The learned State counsel has tried to set up the case that the factum of absence of the name of Raju in the FIR and the fatal blow having caused by Raju might have "skipped" the notice of the eye witnesses, Surja (PW-5) and Sahab Singh (PW-6). 23. We are not convinced with the arguments of the learned State counsel. The discrepancies in the previous statements of Surja, PW-5 and Sahab Singh, PW-6 as set up in the FIR case as also the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 175 Cr.P.C. as against the statements in Court, cannot be reconciled. Not only the name of Raju has been added in the statement in Court but also the fatal blow has been attributed to Raju as against the FIR case in which Zulfi was attributed the fatal blow. The learned State counsel has also not been able to show any material to indicate that the other accused had caused one injury each on the person of Satbir deceased. As per the medico-legal evidence as detailed above, the only injury found to have been received by Satbir was on the head which caused his death, being injury No. 3. Kanshi Ram, PW-7 admittedly was not a witness of the occurrence. 24. As per the medico-legal evidence as detailed above, the only injury found to have been received by Satbir was on the head which caused his death, being injury No. 3. Kanshi Ram, PW-7 admittedly was not a witness of the occurrence. 24. The learned State counsel has further tried to indicate from the site plan, Ex.PG prepared by Anil Kumar, PW-4 which reflects the presence of the accused at the site. However, we find that the site plan was prepared on 5th of April, 1993 i.e. after approximately two months of the incident. Even the site plan does not show presence of Raju. We are, therefore, not convinced that the site plan establishes the prosecution case. 25. No other argument has been advanced. 26. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case as reflected above, we find that the prosecution case is not convincing and there is no material to indicate that Raju, appellant caused bodily injury on the person of Satbir causing his death. The prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the case. The contradictions are material in nature in view of the particular fact that Raju has been added as an accused in the Court for the first time. This aspect assumes importance because Raju was known to the witnesses. Further, the medico-legal evidence reflects single injury on the person of Satbir as against which the prosecution case is of attribution of one injury by each accused which is also not reconcilable or explainable. The contradictions materially altered the incident itself and, therefore, we have no option but to disbelieve the prosecution witnesses. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment of conviction dated 10th of June, 1997 and order of sentence dated 13th of June, 1997 are set aside and consequently, the appellants are acquitted.