JUDGMENT W.A. Shah, J. Appellants ("accused" hereafter) Chander Singh, Narayan Singh, Kalu, Mangilal, Prahladsingh, Vikramsingh, Shankarlal and Bahadursingh were tried together in the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur in Sessions Trial No. 225/1997 arid vide judgment dated 18-8-1998 passed therein each of them has been convicted and sentenced under sections 302/149 Penal Code to Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500-00; and further RI for 6 months in default; and u/s 148 Penal Code to RI for 1 year, substantive sentences running concurrently. These appeals are directed against the above judgment and except Bahadur Singh all other accused figure as appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1125 of 1998, thus Narayan Singh's subsequent Criminal Appeal No. 1246 of 1998 is nothing but a mere repetition; whereas Bahadur Singh's Criminal Appeal No. 1337 of 2002 is distinct. Accordingly this common judgment is being passed in all these appeals, however, treating Criminal Appeal No. 1125 of 1998 as leading case. Without sacrificing the brevity, facts material for the disposal of the appeals are these : On 15-8-1997 at 10 AM Raghunath was passing through new residential area of Village Leemachauhan. He then was proceeding to flour mill on cycle with wheat in small gunny bag for their grinding. When he was near the house of accused Shankar and one Sewa, the former called him. As he reached there, accused persons Shankarlal, Narayan Singh, Vikram Singh and Bahadur Singh armed with Farsi, Chander Singh with axe, Kalu with knife, Prahalad Singh and Mangilal with sticks surrounded him. They belaboured him with weapons carried by them. No sooner the attack was opened, he fell on the ground but the accused continued with their attack and left him only when he appeared gasping for life. After sometime his son (PW-9) Meharban Singh reached there. He called Bhagirath and (PW-6) Inder to help. They proceeded towards Police Out Post Leemachauhan carrying injured Raghunath on cycle. On the way they met Ajmeri and Dinesh. They were riding motor-cycle. They took him on motorcycle to the Police Out Post. There Raghunath lodged FIR (Ex. P/8) to (PW-7) R. S. Saini. He called Bhagirath and (PW-6) Inder to help. They proceeded towards Police Out Post Leemachauhan carrying injured Raghunath on cycle. On the way they met Ajmeri and Dinesh. They were riding motor-cycle. They took him on motorcycle to the Police Out Post. There Raghunath lodged FIR (Ex. P/8) to (PW-7) R. S. Saini. ASI and also stating therein that the accused persons attacked him due to enmity which flowed from an incident of a dispute of land which arose three days before between them and Bane Singh, his brother, and was reported to police wherein he had appeared before police as a witness against the accused persons. He therein also attributed conspiracy of the incident to Daulatpal and Inder Singh. After the recording of the above report, R. S. Saini, ASI, sent Raghunath for medical examination to Sarangpur hospital. He also forwarded Ex. P/8 to Police Station Chhapiheda for formal registration of crime. (PW-10) V. S. Chauhan, ASI, on the basis of Ex. P/8, registered Crime No. 115/1997 for offences of sections 307, 147, 148, 149 and 120-B Penal Code vide Ex. P/12. R. S. Saini as well as V. S. Chauhan took necessary steps in the direction of inquest and investigation. In the meanwhile Raghunath on way to hospital succumbed to his injuries. (PW-2) Dr. R. S. Patel conducted autopsy and vide post-mortem report Ex. P/3 found 11 injuries on the body of Raghunath. Out of the above injuries, two were stab wounds with fractures underneath. They were situated at the right upper back and right leg. Rest of the injuries were contusions. They were respectively caused by sharp cutting - piercing objects and hard - blunt objects. Further Dr. Patel had opined that the cumulative effect of the injuries caused the death of Raghunath following shock due to internal and external haemmorhage. At the completion of the investigation, only the accused, persons were charge-sheeted for offences of sections 302/149 and 148 Penal Code. When they were accordingly charged by the trial Court, they pleaded not guilty and case went to trial with ten prosecution witnesses. The trial concluded with conviction and sentences as stated earlier, hence these appeals by the accused. During the arguments the Learned Counsel for the appellants, did not dispute homicidal death of Raghunath and rightly so in view of medical evidence rendered by (PW-2) Dr. The trial concluded with conviction and sentences as stated earlier, hence these appeals by the accused. During the arguments the Learned Counsel for the appellants, did not dispute homicidal death of Raghunath and rightly so in view of medical evidence rendered by (PW-2) Dr. Patel, but taking us through other evidence he strongly contended that the learned Court below did not properly evaluate the evidence and ran into error when it relied upon dying declaration contained in FIR, though the same does not fix up identity of the accused persons. He further contended that the evidence of (PW-4) Bhanwari Bai should not have been accepted as ocular testimony. Her presence on spot not having been disclosed in statement in FIR treated to be the dying declaration. On the contrary, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State, however, defended the impugned judgment. It is to be seen here whether conviction of all or any of the accused for murder and rioting under sections 302/149 and 148 Penal Code can or cannot he sustained ? First we deal with FIR (Ex. P/8) as dying declaration as to its efficacy regarding fixing up of identity of accused persons. Therein only bare names of accused persons find place. When it is taken up in juxtaposition with the statement of (PW-6) Inder vide Para 4 it is seen that in the concerned village the accused persons are not the only persons named with their names but each such name is given to two or three other different individuals. Therefore, there appears other residents also in plurality bearing same names. Thus dying declaration contained in Ex. P/8 looses its importance. In this view we are supported by a Divisional Bench decision of this Court in State of M.P. vs. Indriya, 1980(II) MPWN 185 , wherein in a situation akin to the present one, it is held as under: Evidence Act, 1872 -- Section 32 -- dying declaration -- when looses its importance -- name of assailant disclosed without full description -- another resident of village also bearing same name -- dying declaration is of no avail. We see yet another reason for discarding the dying declaration contained in Ex. P/8. In the body of the same, towards end of the text about the accused, it is mentioned that "IN LOGO NE EK MAT HOKAR" and further "JAN SE MARNE KI NIYAT SE MARPIT KI HAI". We see yet another reason for discarding the dying declaration contained in Ex. P/8. In the body of the same, towards end of the text about the accused, it is mentioned that "IN LOGO NE EK MAT HOKAR" and further "JAN SE MARNE KI NIYAT SE MARPIT KI HAI". We further find that at the foot of the declaration it is written that it bears the T.I. of the person who made it still the impression which is impressed is very tiny and slim. All these are suggestive of the modulations in the declaration introduced by the Investigation Officer. Therefore, it does not withstand the required closest circumspection and strictest scrutiny. In this connection we rely upon a Divisional Bench decision of this Court reported as 1990 MPLJ 770 = 1990 JLJ 329 , Bhagatram and others vs. State of M.P. which lays down as under: According to Ex. P/64-A Durga named all the accused and then goes on to say that all the accused with common object "SAB NE EKMAT HOKAR" hit him. At one place after the words "EKMAT HOKAR" he says to cause his death "JAN SE MARNE KO MARA HAI" Now, the use of words "EKMAT HOKAR" meaning common object at two places by Durga creates suspicion. Whether in reality, it uses the word used by Durga or the words are an invention on the part of Nathusingh so as to invoke sections 141, 147, 148, 149 and fasten liability on accused and that of unlawful assembly ? This is not to say that villagers, in any case, cannot use the words "EKMAT HOKAR" but taken along with other circumstances pointed in the case, the probability of the Investigating Officer himself having introduced these words in Ex. P/64-A, cannot be ruled out. Now we turn to (PW-4) Bhanwari Bai who has been examined as eye witness and has apparently given ocular account of the incident in support of the prosecution case. We find that in FIR (Ex. P/8) Raghunath has given a graphic picture of the incident mentioning also appearance of witnesses according to their arrivals. However, we find no mention of Bhanwari Bai anywhere in it. Her presence on the scene of occurrence is thus not unblemished. Here we may also express that in Sahab Singh and another Vs. We find that in FIR (Ex. P/8) Raghunath has given a graphic picture of the incident mentioning also appearance of witnesses according to their arrivals. However, we find no mention of Bhanwari Bai anywhere in it. Her presence on the scene of occurrence is thus not unblemished. Here we may also express that in Sahab Singh and another Vs. State of Rajasthan, though wife of the deceased was not named in FIR yet she was believed, however, that was with reference to facts of that case and we cannot press it into service here. Accordingly testimony of Bhanwari Bai does not inspire confidence. In view of what has been stated above, the entire basis of conviction of the accused persons looses ground. These appeals, therefore, deserve to be allowed. Hence all these appeals are allowed. In the result the accused persons are acquitted of charges of sections 302/149 and 148 Penal Code. Accused Prahalad Singh is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. Other accused persons if not wanted in any other case be released forthwith from custody. Amount of fine if paid, be refunded. Copy of this judgment be placed in the sister appeals. Final Result : Allowed