JUDGMENT : M.G. Giratkar, J The State has challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur dated 12-1-2009 by which all the respondents (hereinafter referred as 'accused') came to be acquitted. 2. The case of the prosecution against the accused in short is as under : (i) Hamid Khan (P.W. 2) went to Village Belkheda for grazing his buffaloes. He went to water tank for taking water. Just near the water tank, there was a fish shop. Accused Ganpat Bhusum was sitting in drunken condition. Accused Ganpat abused him. There was quarrel between him and Ganpat. Other accused came there and beat Hamid Khan. Thereafter he reached to Paratwada. He had taken his relatives, namely, Riyaz, Sahebkhan and Sk. Nasim. They went to Belkheda. On the way, near water canal, Nasim, Riyaz and Aslam alighted from the auto. Hamid Khan and Sahebkhan proceeded to Belkheda. As soon as they alighted from auto, all accused attacked on them. He shouted for help. Accused persons beat them. (ii) Sahebkhan, Aslam Khan, Riyaz Ahmad and Sk. Nasim reached there. Accused also attacked them. They all ran away from that place for saving their life. At that time, accused surrounded Riyaz Ahmed. They gave blows of wooden sticks to Riyaz. Hamid Khan ran away for saving his life to Paratwada. He reached Village Dhotarkheda. One Chand Choudhary came to his house and told that he found Riyaz sitting by the side of road in injured condition, then he brought Riyaz at the house of Navab. Water was provided to Riyaz. He called Sahebkhan and sent Riyaz to the hospital of Dr. Badar. Thereafter he was taken to Dr. Adoni. Deceased was referred to Amravati. He died during treatment in the hospital of Dr. Sawadekar. (iii) After death of Riyaz, his father Abdul Nasheem Sheikh Maheboob lodged report in Police Station, Paratwada. He has stated in his report that he came to know about the incident after the death of Riyaz. On the report of complainant (Exhibit 29), crime was registered against the accused persons. P.W. 8 Police Inspector, Bawiskar investigated the crime, went to the spot of incident, prepared spot panchanama and recovered the articles i.e. sticks etc. from the accused and after complete investigation, filed chargesheet before the Court. On the report of complainant (Exhibit 29), crime was registered against the accused persons. P.W. 8 Police Inspector, Bawiskar investigated the crime, went to the spot of incident, prepared spot panchanama and recovered the articles i.e. sticks etc. from the accused and after complete investigation, filed chargesheet before the Court. (iv) Charge was framed at Exhibit 14 for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution has examined 8 witnesses. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After hearing the prosecution and defence, trial Court acquitted all the accused, hence, the present appeal by the State. 3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. Joshi for the appellant/State. She has submitted that evidence on record not properly considered by the trial Court and prayed to allow the appeal. 4. None appeared for the respondents/accused. 5. Perused the evidence on record. P.W. 1 lodged report after death of his son Riyaz. He came to know about the incident from other witnesses. 6. P.W. 2 Hamid Khan was the person who had taken deceased and other witnesses to the village of accused. As per his evidence, there was quarrel in the day time with accused Ganpat. He was beaten by the accused. In the evening, he had taken Riyaz and others to Village Belkheda. Riyaz and some others alighted from the auto near the village. 7. As soon as P.W. 2 alighted from the auto, accused started assaulted him. He shouted for help. From backside Sahebkhan, Aslamkhan, Riyaz Ahmad and Sk. Nasim reached there. Accused persons also attacked on those persons. All they ran away to save their lives. Accused surrounded Riyaz and gave blows of stick. This witness went to the house of his maternal aunt to Paratwada and slept there. In the next morning, he went to Village Dhotarkheda. During the course of crossexamination, he has admitted that deceased had no concern with the accused. Material omission is brought on record. He has stated in his crossexamination as under : “While giving statement before police I had stated that when we reached at Belkheda the accused no. 1 to 5 were standing there by carrying sticks in their hands.” 8. Evidence of P.W. 2 is not reliable because he was the person who called Riyaz and others at the village of accused persons. 1 to 5 were standing there by carrying sticks in their hands.” 8. Evidence of P.W. 2 is not reliable because he was the person who called Riyaz and others at the village of accused persons. As per his crossexamination, he told the complainant to lodge report against the accused persons. 9. P.W. 5 Aslam Khan has stated that P.W. 2 told him that there was some quarrel with him at Village Belkheda. He told him that his younger brother Bablu and she buffaloes were in the forest. He requested them to come along with him. He along with Riyaz, Nasim, Hamid Khan and Saheb Khan went to Belkheda by autorickshaw. He along with Riyaz and Nasim alighted from autorickshaw near Village Belkheda. P.W. 2 proceeded in the said auto. They saw five persons quarreling with Saheb and Hamid. When they intervened in order to rescue them, those persons also attacked on them. All they ran away from that place in different directions. 10. P.W. 6 Sahebkhan has stated about the incident. He has stated that accused Kailash attacked on Hamid with stick. Witness Bhadu made cry saying eq>dks cpkvks . Riyaz rushed to save Bhadu. Nasim and Aslam also reached there by running. At that time Kailash gave blow of stick on head of Riyaz. All accused started beating them. Therefore, they ran away. Riyaz was lying there. On the next day morning, he along with Chand Choudhary going towards Belkheda. He saw Riyaz near hut of Nawab. He was in a critical condition. He took Riyaz on the motorcycle to the hospital of Dr. Badar. Thereafter he was taken to the hospital of Dr. Adoni. In the crossexamination, he has stated as under : “Police recorded my statement. In my police statement I had stated that accused Kailash gave beating to Bhadu by giving blow of stick. I had stated before police in statement that accused Kailash gave blow of wooden stick on head of Riyaz. I had stated before police that Riyaz was lying there and blood was oozing from his head. While giving statement I had stated before police that when other persons were giving beating to Riyaz I ran away from that place. I had stated before police that I had seen Riyaz as lying near Hut and his condition was serious. I had stated before police that Riyaz was lying there and blood was oozing from his head. While giving statement I had stated before police that when other persons were giving beating to Riyaz I ran away from that place. I had stated before police that I had seen Riyaz as lying near Hut and his condition was serious. I have no reason as to why all above facts are not finding place in my statement before police.” 11. P.W. 7 Chand Chaudhari has stated that deceased was lying near bushes in injured condition and was requesting for water and therefore, he was taken in one hut and provided water. 12. From the evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6, it is clear that their evidence are not reliable. It is brought on record in their crossexamination that they themselves went to the house of accused and quarreled with them. Accused Ganpat lodged report against P.W. 2 and other witnesses. This fact is admitted by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8). Exhibit 52 is the chargesheet filed against Hamid Khan, Sahebkhan, Aslamkhan, Nashimkhan and Sk. Nasim clearly shows that they are prosecuted by the police for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 147, 148, 149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Ganpat lodged the report against these witnesses for entering their house, committing riot and causing injury to them. This fact is concealed by the witnesses and prosecution. During the course of crossexamination, chargesheet shown to the witnesses and came to be exhibited. 13. The prosecution has suppressed the real fact from the Court. Crossexamination of Investigating Officer (P.W. 8) clearly shows that accused were falsely involved on the report of Ab. Nasim Shaikh, P.W. 1. P.W. 2 has admitted in his crossexamination that as per his say, P.W. 1 lodged report against the accused. Crossexamination of P.W. 8 is as under : “It is correct to say that as per my investigation it became known to me that there was a meeting between complainant and the other witnesses of this case namely Bhadu and others on 07.02.2007. It is correct to say that during my investigation it revealed to me that Riyaz during night time ran away from forest and felled down. It is correct to say that I recorded statement of Dr. Sharad Adone. It is correct to say that during my investigation it revealed to me that Riyaz during night time ran away from forest and felled down. It is correct to say that I recorded statement of Dr. Sharad Adone. –It is correct to say that deceased Riyaj was examined by Dr. Adoni became known to me during my investigation. It is correct to say that during my investigation it revealed to me that when deceased Riyaj was examined by Dr. Adone. The Riyaj was in a position to talk and there was a talk in between Riyaj and Dr. Adone. It is correct to say that during my investigation it was also revealed to me that the deceased Riyaj while driving his motorcycle slipped away and therefore he felled on the ground and sustained injury. It is correct to say that during my investigation it was also became known to me that deceased Riyaj was taken to his house by his friends and then Riyaj was at his house for whole night and on next day morning Riyaj was brought at hospital of Adone from his house. It is correct to say that I got knowledge that while driving motorcycle deceased felled down and sustained injuries.” 14. Crossexamination of Investigating Officer clearly shows that before filing the chargesheet, he was knowing that deceased sustained injuries while he was driving his motorcycle. His motorcycle slipped and Riyaz fell down but this fact is suppressed by the prosecution. 15. P.W. 8 has further admitted in his crossexamination as under : “It is not correct to say that, on 6.2.07 at about 8.30 p.m. accused of this case Ganpat had come to police station, Paratwada and lodged a report of giving him beating by Hamid & his three friends (sic frields). It is correct to say that, on 6.2.07 I had sent accused of this case namely, Bansi and Ganpat from police station Paratwada to cottage hospital Achalpur for their medical examination and it appears that, they were examined by Dr. in between 11 p.m. to 11.50 p.m. one by one. It is correct to say that, on 6.2.07 I had also sent one Sundarabai Ganpat for her medical examination. And she was examined 11.00 p.m. One certified copy of the chargesheet (sic chrgesheet) shown to the witness. The chargesheet (sic chrge sheet) Exh. in between 11 p.m. to 11.50 p.m. one by one. It is correct to say that, on 6.2.07 I had also sent one Sundarabai Ganpat for her medical examination. And she was examined 11.00 p.m. One certified copy of the chargesheet (sic chrgesheet) shown to the witness. The chargesheet (sic chrge sheet) Exh. 52 shown to me is filed by me in the court. The xerox impression of my signature bears on this chargesheet (sic chrgesheet). It is correct to say that, along with this chargesheet I filed the medical examination certificate of accused Bansi, Ganpat and one other lady Sundarabai. Document shown to me are the certified copy of those certificate. It is at Ex. 90 & 91. It is correct to say that, the Crime No. 21/07 of chargesheet Exh. 52 was registered as per report lodged by Sundarabai on 16.2.07. It is correct to say that, Sundarabai is the wife of Ganpat who is accused of this case. It is correct to say that, document shown to me is that statement it bears xerox impression of my signature. It is at Exh. 92.” 16. Evidence of witness Abdul Nasim and other witnesses are not reliable. Complainant has denied his statement portion marked 'A' but this portion came to be proved by the Investigating Officer. P.W. 8 has stated in his evidence that contents of portion marked 'A' was stated by P.W. 1. It is marked as Exhibit 89. As per this Exhibit 89, P.W. 1 stated in his statement that Riyaz met with an accident. 17. As per the evidence of P.W. 8, he had recorded statement of Dr. Adone but prosecution not examined Dr. Adone. Accused persons examined Dr. Adone as defence witness. 18. Dr. Adone has stated in his evidence that Riyaz was brought to his Nursing Home on 7-2-2007 by his uncle and relatives. He was in injured condition. He was having injuries on his head and chin and abrasions on face. Patient informed him that he sustained injuries due to accident. Riyaz stated before him that on earlier night while he was driving motorcycle, the motorcycle slipped away and therefore he sustained injuries. This particular evidence of Dr. Adone clearly shows that deceased Riyaz was not beaten by the accused but he has sustained injuries due to the accident of motorcycle. This particular fact is suppressed by the prosecution. Riyaz stated before him that on earlier night while he was driving motorcycle, the motorcycle slipped away and therefore he sustained injuries. This particular evidence of Dr. Adone clearly shows that deceased Riyaz was not beaten by the accused but he has sustained injuries due to the accident of motorcycle. This particular fact is suppressed by the prosecution. Accused brought on record the real fact in the crossexamination of the Investigating Officer and by the evidence of Dr. Adone. 19. Crossexamination of Investigating Officer shows that P.W. 2, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 went to the house of accused Ganpat. They entered in their house and beat them. On report of Sundarabai w/o Ganpat, crime was registered against these witnesses. Chargesheet was filed against them vide Exhibit 52. This material fact was denied by the interested witnesses i.e. P.W. 2, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 but during the course of crossexamination, this chargesheet was shown to them, they have admitted the same. Evidence brought on record by the defence shows that defence of false involvement of accused persons is duly established. Learned trial rightly acquitted all the accused. There is no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment, hence, we do not find any merit in the appeal and proceed to pass the following order. ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) R & P be sent back to the trial Court.