Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The death of Asu Khan, the central theme of long testimonies and of all tales, continues to be shrouded in mystery. The sixteen appellants before us have been convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 302, 302/149, 307/149 and 148 I.P.C. While Samay Singh has been convicted for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. simpliciter, and has been sentenced to Life Imprisonment, the rest of the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 302/149 and sentenced likewise to Life imprisonment and have been imposed with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, and to further undergo a sentence of three years of simple imprisonment in default thereof. Along with Samay Singh, further they have been convicted and sentenced for offences under sections 307/149 and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment. For offense under Section 148, the appellants, including Samay Singh, have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year and have been imposed with a fine of Rs. 500/- and to further undergo an imprisonment for six months, in default thereof. The appellants have filed two appeals. Since both the appeals are challenging the same impugned judgment, the appeals are being decided by this common judgment. However, as the appellants Narangi and Attu Khan have expired, during the pendency of the appeals, the appeals have abated qua them. (2). The brief facts of the case are that on 2.6.1992, one Dalsher Khan (P.W.1) submitted a written report (Ex.P.1) to the S.H.O. Police Station M.I.A. Alwar, at the General Hospital, Alwar, wherein it was stated as under: He is a resident of Village Sahdoli Mandaru Ka Bas. Because of political reasons, there is some animosity with the complainant. On 31.5.1992, the complainant had gone to deliver an invitation to the Village Mandu Ka Bas to Naseeb Khans place. It was the marriage of Naseeb Khans son, therefore, he had gone to invite Naseeb Khans at his place and was returning to his own village. On the way back, using a tractor and trolley, the accused persons, along with twenty or twenty-five persons had blocked the road. One Munshi Khan was with the complainant when this incident took place. Munsi Khan was on complainants scooter. When he went slightly ahead of the tractor, these persons surrounded him. Samay Singh and Sahab Khan cursed him and also assaulted him. One Munshi Khan was with the complainant when this incident took place. Munsi Khan was on complainants scooter. When he went slightly ahead of the tractor, these persons surrounded him. Samay Singh and Sahab Khan cursed him and also assaulted him. They asked him as to how dare he came to their village. They also threatened him that after the marriage, they will come to his village to teach him a lesson. He came back to his village on the scooter. He claimed that he had informed the police on 1.6.1992 about this incident. But, he did not inform about this incident on 31.5.1992, as it was already night and he was afraid of the dark. On 2.6.1992, they received information that one of their relative had expired; therefore, in order to attend his funeral, the family members and others had collected at his house. Around 10.00 or 10.30 AM, three tractors, full of about fifty to sixty persons, who were armed with guns, lathies (bamboo sticks) and pharsis (axes) came from the side of Mandu Ka Bas. Samay Singh, Sahab Khan son of Safeda, Narangi, Hanif, Majid, Hamid, Parmal, Mahipal, Kallu, Aseen, Fathi Khan, Bhoop Singh, Sulli, Imran, Subban, Attu and others were there. The moment these persons jumped out of the tractors, Samay Singh and Sahab Singh told the intruders to settle the past scores. Samay Singh filed from his gun, which hit Asu on his chest and abdomen. Asu fell down. Samay Singh fired the second shot, which hit Asu on his right hand. Samay Singh told his companions that everyone should be gunned down. Consequently, Sahab Singh fired from his gun, which hit Hurmat on his chest, abdomen, neck and on the nose. Pellets hit Hurmat. Hamid S/o Bhoop Singh fired from his gun, the shot hit Leela S/o Subani, on his eyes, left hand and left thigh. Narangi fired from his gun, which hit Paltu S/o Chandar on his left arm. Hanif fired from his gun that hit Budh Singh on his left hand, left thigh, chest and nose. Majid, also fired his gun which hit Budh Singh on his right foot and on both the hands. Parmal also fired from his gun that hit Sarsu on his foot, and Isa Khan and Umar Khan on their hands. Hanif fired from his gun that hit Budh Singh on his left hand, left thigh, chest and nose. Majid, also fired his gun which hit Budh Singh on his right foot and on both the hands. Parmal also fired from his gun that hit Sarsu on his foot, and Isa Khan and Umar Khan on their hands. Kallu S/o Attu also fired from his gun, which hit him (Dalsher) on his left hand and abdomen. These accused persons were also armed with lathis and pharsis, but they could not be used as the two groups did not rush into each other and there was no scuffle. Bhoop Singh hit Chottal Ruh with a stone, which hit him on the chin. Aseen Khan and Fatti also had guns with them, but they shot in the air. Dalla, Manohar, Munshi have witnessed this incident. Samay Singh, Sahab Khan, Narangi, Hamid, Parmal had 12 bore guns with them; the others had kattas (country made pistol) with them. There were empty cartridges lying at the spot, which he has brought with him and is giving to the police. After about half an hour, the three tractors left towards Bandu Ka Bas. They collected the injured and brought them to the Police Station. There the Additional Superintendent of Police told them to take the injured to the hospital. The injured have been hospitalized. Asu, Leela @ Zahru, are in serious condition. We dont know whether they would survive or not. The police should take action. (3). The said report was sent to the Police Station through Constable, Kishan Lal. On the basis of the said written report, a formal F.I.R., F.I.R. No. 131/92 was chalked out for offences under 147, 148, 149, 307, 336 I.P.C. During treatment at the hospital, Asu Khan died. Thereafter, the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. was added. On 19.1.1993, the charge sheet against the accused, Deen Mohammad, Fatti Khan, Aseen, Kallu Khan, Majid, Sulli, Subban, Imrat, Hanif, Hamid Khan, Mahipal, Attu Khan, Parmal, Bhoop Singh and Narangi, was submitted. On 15.4.1993, the supplementary charge sheet against Sahab Khan, Samay Singh was submitted for offences under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 and 149 of I.P.C. Against Samay Singh the charge for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 I.P.C. were framed. On 15.4.1993, the supplementary charge sheet against Sahab Khan, Samay Singh was submitted for offences under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 and 149 of I.P.C. Against Samay Singh the charge for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 I.P.C. were framed. Against the rest of the accused persons, the charges for offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 I.P.C. were framed. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. (4). In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined twenty- nine witnesses and produced 126 documents. The defense produced two witnesses and submitted fifteen documents. After hearing both the sides, after going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial court, while acquitting Deen Mohammad of the charges, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. Hence, these two appeals before us. (5). The Counsels for the appellants have raised a large number of contentions before us; firstly, there is utter confusion in the testimony as to the place where the occurrence took place. According to some eye-witnesses the occurrence took place in front of Sitab Khans house. Yet, Sitab Khan (P.W.5) denies this fact in his testimony. According to other eye-witnesses the occurrence took place behind Sitab Khans house and in Umar Khans field. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the place of occurrence. (6). Secondly, the prosecution has likewise failed to prove the place where the assailants shot Asu Khan. While some claim he was shot in the field of Umar Khan, others claim he was shot near the "chabutra" (raised platform) in front of Sitab Khans house. (7). Thirdly, the eye-witnesses have described the firing by the assailants in great detail. It is rather surprising that in a melee, where guns are allegedly fired at random, the details of whose shot hit whom has been given with minute precision. The witnesses are custom tailoring their testimony to the prosecution case. Hence, the witnesses are untrustworthy. (8). Fourthly, although the eye-witnesses are precise about each shot fired by the assailants, yet their testimony about the shots sustained by the deceased is contrary to the medical report. According to the eye-witness, Samay Singh fired the shot at the same level. But according to the medical evidence, the trajectory of the pellets is downwards. Hence, the direction of the bullet belies the case of the prosecution. (9) Fifthly, the prosecution witnesses have roped in innocent persons. According to the eye-witness, Samay Singh fired the shot at the same level. But according to the medical evidence, the trajectory of the pellets is downwards. Hence, the direction of the bullet belies the case of the prosecution. (9) Fifthly, the prosecution witnesses have roped in innocent persons. This is proven from the fact that according to the witnesses, about fifty-to-sixty persons had arrived in three different tractors, at the scene of the crime. Yet the police charge sheeted only seventeen persons, i.e. the appellants along with Deen Mohammad. Thus, more persons were claimed to be at the scene of the crime, yet the police has charge sheeted less number of persons. Moreover, both Bhoop Singh and Narangi were seventy- five years old at the time of the alleged incident. It would be surprising that the old men would need to fire shots when young men were readily available amongst the intruders. Further more according to the Inquest Report (Ex.D.9), one of the signatories, namely Issa Khan, the father of the deceased Asu Khan, had categorically stated that only three persons amongst the intruders had guns with them, namely Samay Singh, Sahab Khan, and Hamid Khan. Therefore, the subsequent testimony of the witnesses, where they claim that all the appellants were armed with guns, is belied by the categorical assertion of Issa Khan. (10). Sixthly, the FIR produced by the prosecution is a post- investigational document. (11). On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Sunda, the learned counsel for the complainant, and the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. R.P. Kuldeep, have argued that the presence of the witness cannot be doubted, as they are injured witnesses. Hence, they are eyewitnesses of the alleged incident. Secondly, there is contradiction in the testimonies of the witnesses on minor points. The fact remains, that the appellants came to the scene of the crime, opened fire and shot a large number of persons, and killed Asu Khan. The substratum of the prosecution story is borne out from the testimonies of the witnesses. Therefore, these counsels have supported the impugned judgment. (12). We have heard the learned counsels for the parties, have examined the record before us and have perused the impugned judgment. (13). According to the site plan (Ex. P. 16), the place of incident is Sitab Khans house. The site plan reveals the house to be ``pucca house with staircase leading to the roof. (12). We have heard the learned counsels for the parties, have examined the record before us and have perused the impugned judgment. (13). According to the site plan (Ex. P. 16), the place of incident is Sitab Khans house. The site plan reveals the house to be ``pucca house with staircase leading to the roof. According to the site plan, there are blood spots and stains on the roof and on the staircase. Moreover, there is no ``chabutra (raised platform) in front of the house. In back of the house there are fields, which belong to Umar Khan. On the back wall of the house- the wall touching Umar Khans field- there are pellets marks. Further, in front of the house, and away from it, is a place belonging to one Kallu. At that place there is a cot where there is lots of blood. According to the site plan, at the time of the incident, the witnesses were on the roof of the house. The said plan was prepared in front of Sitab KHan, whose presence at the time of the incident is testified to by some of the witnesses, and in front of Umar Khan, who is an eyewitness. Hence, the authenticity of the site plan cannot be doubted. It is a document submitted by the prosecution. (14). Yet, the site plan belies the testimonies of the eyewitnesses. According to PW. 2 Umar Khan, PW. 4 Idreesh, PW. 8 Leela, PW. 9 Isha, PW. 13 Budh Singh, PW. 14 Dalla, PW. 15 Amar Singh, the complainant party was sitting on the ``chabutra (raised platform) in front of Sitabs house. Yet, according to the site plan, no such structure exists. According to PW. 1 Dilsher, PW. 2 Umar Khan, PW. 3 Deen Mohammad, they gathered at Sitab Khans house. PW. 1 Dilsher, denies the fact that the witnesses were sitting on the roof of the house. Yet according to the site plan, bloodstains have been found on the roof of the house and on the staircase leading from the ground floor to the roof. Thus, the presence of the bloodstains on the roof and on the staircase belies the testimonies of the witnesses who claim they were sitting in front of the house on a ``chabutra (raised platform). But, according to Sitab Khan, PW. 5, the incident did not take place at his house at all. Thus, the presence of the bloodstains on the roof and on the staircase belies the testimonies of the witnesses who claim they were sitting in front of the house on a ``chabutra (raised platform). But, according to Sitab Khan, PW. 5, the incident did not take place at his house at all. According to him, on 2.6.92, he was not in his village and had gone outside. But, when he came back, no one told him about such a big incident. In his cross- examination he claims ``if such a major event had taken place at his house, someone would have informed him. But he has no such information. Hence, according to him, the incident did not take place at his house as claimed by the eyewitnesses. Hence, there is complete contradiction between the prosecution witnesses about where they had gathered and where the occurrence took place. (15). Similarly, there is contradiction in the prosecution evidence about the place where Asu Khan was shot and where he fell. As stated above, according to the site plan blood spots were seen on the roof, on the staircase of Sitab Khans house and in the structure belonging to Kalu. Yet, according to PW. 1 Dilsher, PW. 2 Umar Khan, P.W. 3 Deen Mohammad, PW. 4 Idreesh, PW. 6 Hurmat, PW. 10 Hamid, Asu Khan was shot in the field belonging to Umar Khan and he fell there. According to PW. 4 Idreesh, the complainant party was sitting on the ``chabutra in front of Sitabs house. When they saw three tractor load of people coming into Umar Khans fields, in the back of Sitabs house, they walked from the ``chabutra to the back of the house where Umar Khans field is located. Asu Khan was in front of the complainant party and was the first to be shot. In his cross- examination he denies the fact that the complainant party was sitting on the roof of the house. He insists that they were sitting on the ``chabutra and that Asu Khan was shot in the field belonging to Umar Khan. Similarly, PW. 6 denies the fact that the complainant party was sitting on the roof of the house. He too insists that they were sitting on the ``chabutra. He too repeats that Asu Khan fell in Umar Khans field where he was shot. Similarly, PW. 6 denies the fact that the complainant party was sitting on the roof of the house. He too insists that they were sitting on the ``chabutra. He too repeats that Asu Khan fell in Umar Khans field where he was shot. According to him, Asu Khan was lying in Umar Khans field for almost half an hour. Similarly, PW.10 Hamid denies that anyone was shot on the roof of the house. According to him also, Asu Khan was shot in Umar Khans field. Surprisingly, no blood was discovered in the fields belonging to Umar Khan. Hence, again the testimonies are contradicted by the site plan. (16). Interestingly, according to PW. 9 Isha, the father of the deceased, the complainant party was sitting on the ``chabutra when the accused persons came. According to his cross- examination, Asu Khan was shot on the chabutra itself. He claims that he and Deen Mohammad picked up Asu Khan from Sitab Khans chabutra and took him to the structure belonging to Kalu. Hence, according to him, Asu Khan was not shot in Umar Khans field, whereas according to others, Asu Khan was shot in Umar Khans field. Therefore, there is clear-cut contradiction between the testimonies of the witnesses. Hence, they are unreliable. (17). Furthermore, there is contradiction between the ocular evidence and the medical one. According to the witnesses, Asu Khan was hit while he was standing in Umar Khans field and Samay Singh shot him straight ahead. Hence. the pellet should have entered and existed at the same level. Yet, according to the Post Mortem Report, the pellets have moved in a downward direction. Because of the contradiction, the witnesses are untrustworthy. (18). According to the witnesses, the appellants came on three different tractors. Yet, they can neither tell the model of the tractors, nor the color of the tractor, nor who was driving them. They all claim that the tractors were standing in Umar Khans fields. Yet, there are no tier marks present in the fields according to the site plan. Moreover, no tractor was ever recovered from the appellants during the investigation. Hence, the witnesses cannot be believed on this point. (19). All the eyewitnesses have narrated the occurrence in parrot like fashion. They were so observant as to specify the shooter and the injured. This is, indeed, surprising. Moreover, no tractor was ever recovered from the appellants during the investigation. Hence, the witnesses cannot be believed on this point. (19). All the eyewitnesses have narrated the occurrence in parrot like fashion. They were so observant as to specify the shooter and the injured. This is, indeed, surprising. In a melee where guns and country made pistol are being fired at random, it is difficult, if not impossible to assign specific injuries to specific accused person. The witness would also have us believe that they did not run for cover, but stood there like ducks waiting to be shot at. There is n panic, no mayhem, no shouts, no chaos at the scene of the crime. Their conduct is against the normal human conduct. Hence, their testimony does not inspire confidence. (20). One of the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence is that ``men may lie, circumstances do not. The presence of blood spots and stains on the roof, on the staircase and at Kalus place is narrating a different story than the one narrated by the witnesses. Similarly, the Post Mortem Report is revealing a different set of events than is being revealed by the witnesses. The testimonies of the witnesses are not corroborated by circumstantial evidence. In fact, the circumstantial evidence knocks the bottom out of the prosecution story. Hence, we find the witnesses as unreliable. (21). For these reasons, we allow the appears and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants. We acquit the appellants Aseen Khan, Imrat Khan, Hamid, Subban, Sulli, Mahipal, Sahab Khan, Kallu Khan, Parmal, Majeed, Hanif, Fatti Khan and Bhoop Singh of the charges under Sections 148, 302/149, and 307/149 IPC. Appellants Aseen Khan, Imrat Khan, Hamid, Subban, Sulli, Mahipal, Sahab Khan, Parmal, Majeed, Fatti Khan and Bhoop Singh are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged. Appellants Hanif and Kallu Khan, who are in jail shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. (22). We allow the appeal of appellant Samay Singh and set aside his conviction and sentence of the charge under Section 302, 148, and 307/149 IPC and acquit him of the said charges. Appellant Samay Singh, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.