JUDGMENT Vishal Dhagat, J. - State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this appeal against judgment dated 20/06/1994 passed in Sessions Trial No. 139/1991. Learned Sessions Court had acquitted the accused persons under Sections 147, 336/149, 452/149, 323/149, 427/149, 436/149 and 342/149 of Indian Penal Code. One of the accused person namely Jagdeesh-respondent No. 1 in this appeal has been convicted under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt to Bhagwan Das. 2. Appellant in this appeal has challenged acquittal of respondents under Sections 147, 336/149, 452/149, 323/149, 427/149, 436/149 and 342/149 of Indian Penal Code. This Court while considering the application for leave to appeal filed by the State Government has dismissed the application in respect of 16 accused persons i.e, respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. Leave to appeal was allowed against four respondents i.e, respondent Nos. 1, 5, 7, 14, namely Jagdeesh, Brajmohan, Barelal, and Harcharan. 3. As per prosecution story, Jagdeesh and Barelal are sons of one Nandram. They are neighbors of complainant Dharamdas. Bhagwandas, Motilal, Ashok Kumar are sons of complainant Dharamdas. Admittedly, there is enmity between Dharamdas and his neighbor Nandram. On 27/03/1990 grandson of Dharamdas namely Kailash was playing near hedge of house of Jagdeesh. Kailash aged one and half years was injured when Jagdeesh removed the temporary gate of the hedge. He fell down due to the push of the gate and started crying. Over this, daughter-in-law Rajkumari and Bhagwandas started cursing Jagdeesh. Enraged by curse, Jagdeesh assaulted Bhagwandas with kulhadi (axe) on his head. After some time, all the respondents came there with lathi and stones and surrounded the house of Nandram. They started pelting stones on the house of complainant Dharamdas. Complainant and family members took refuge in the house. Respondents entered inside the house and broke household articles of complainant. Respondent Brijbhan bolted the house of the complainant and put the house on fire. Villagers tried to douze off the fire but respondents did not allowed them to douze off the fire and threatened them. Hearing about the incident, Naib Tehsildar, who was visiting village Banda came to the spot and gave directions to put off the fire. When villagers failed to put off the fire, he went to Police Station Mohangarh. Villagers tried to douze off the fire but respondents did not allowed them to douze off the fire and threatened them. Hearing about the incident, Naib Tehsildar, who was visiting village Banda came to the spot and gave directions to put off the fire. When villagers failed to put off the fire, he went to Police Station Mohangarh. Incharge S.H.O. Shri R.K. Gautam made entry of the incident in rojnamcha and reached the spot with police force. Collector and Superintendent of Police also reached the spot. Police force evicted the family from the house and put off the fire. Incharge S.H.O. registered dehati nalshi, Ex-P/1 at the spot and send it to police station for registration of FIR. Injured persons were sent to hospital for examination. Punchnama of damages and seizure memo of the burnt articles was made on spot. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and challan was filed in the Court. Matter was committed for trial before Sessions Judge on 4/10/1991. 4. Respondents pleaded not guilty before the trial Court and charges against them were framed on 02/12/1991 under Sections 324, 147, 336/149, 452/149, 323/149, 427/149, 436/149 and 342/149 of Indian Penal Code. 5. Prosecution examined 17 witnesses and exhibited documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-33 to prove its case. As per prosecution case, respondents forming unlawful assembly committed riots, house trespass after making preparation of assault, wrongfully restrained complainant and his family members in house and committed mischief causing damage of property more than Rs.50 and causing hurt by using dangerous weapons. 6. Respondents took defence that Dharamdas had put his own house on fire and when villagers tried to put off the fire, complainant's family member pelted stones from the terrace and stop them from putting off fire. Soyabean was not burnt in the incident and complainant falsely claimed that their bags of Soyabean was burnt by the respondents. Intention of the complainant was to falsely implicate the respondents in the case. To prove its defence, respondents examined two defence witnesses namely Gokul and Indur. 7. Learned trial Court after considering evidence available on record held that prosecution failed to prove which accused-respondent caused simple injuries on Kamlabai and Motilal. Learned trial Court further held that there are only three eye-witnesses of the incident namely Dharamdas, Bhagwandas and Motilal. To prove its defence, respondents examined two defence witnesses namely Gokul and Indur. 7. Learned trial Court after considering evidence available on record held that prosecution failed to prove which accused-respondent caused simple injuries on Kamlabai and Motilal. Learned trial Court further held that there are only three eye-witnesses of the incident namely Dharamdas, Bhagwandas and Motilal. On going through the evidence of eye-witnesses and other circumstantial evidence, it is found that there is no consistent version of prosecution witnesses that who is responsible for putting the house on fire. There is contradictory statements of the eye-witnesses about the person who put the house on fire. Due to contradictory statement of eyewitness, culpability of act of putting the house on fire cannot be fixed on a particular person. Similarly, there is no consistency in the statement of witnesses regarding pelting of stones and causing damage to household articles. Due to contradiction of witnesses over the fact that who bolted the door ¼lkSady yxkbZ½ damaged household articles and pelted the stones, culpability cannot be fixed on a particular accused person and therefore, each of the accused person cannot be held liable for performing the act in pursuance of common object. Learned trial Court held that charges No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were not proved against the accused-respondents. Learned trial Court held that charge No. 8 is proved against Jagdeesh and he was convicted under Section 324 for causing hurt to Bhagwandas by dangerous weapon. Evidence of eye-witnesses and also F.S.L. report points out that Jagdeesh has caused hurt to Bhagwandas by axe. 8. Leave to appeal has been allowed in respect of four respondents, therefore, evidence available against these four respondents is examined. Out of these four respondents, Jagdeesh and Brijmohan is said to have set the house of complainant on fire and other two persons namely Barelal and Harcharan threatened the villagers not to help the accused persons confined in the house and stopped them from douzing off the fire. 9. Counsel appearing for the State Government argued that the learned trial Court had committed an error in not believing the testimony of Dharamdas, Bhagwandas and Motilal. Said witnesses had stated regarding involvement of accused persons in burning the house of complainant. 9. Counsel appearing for the State Government argued that the learned trial Court had committed an error in not believing the testimony of Dharamdas, Bhagwandas and Motilal. Said witnesses had stated regarding involvement of accused persons in burning the house of complainant. It was further stated that broken articles in the house and burnt objects were also found and trial Court committed an error in not relying on said evidence and testimony of the prosecution witnesses to convict the accused persons. 10. Heard the counsel appearing for the appellant-State and perused the record. 11. Eye-Witnesses of the incident are Dharamdas (PW-1), Bhagwandas (PW-2), Motilal (PW-3) and Ashok Kumar (PW-5). PW-1 Dharamdas deposed that Jagdeesh put the house on fire but later on in cross examination he said that Brajmohan had put the house on fire and further he improved his statement and said in cross examination that both Jagdeesh and Brajmohan torched the house. Dharamdas (PW-1) in dehati nalshi says that Brijmohan has put the house on fire. Bhagwandas deposed that he is witness of the incident but as per evidence, he received injury on his head and fainted on spot. He was taken inside the house by his brothers. He himself admitted that he remain unconscious for one and half hours after receiving injury. Other two eye-witnesses namely Motilal and Ashok Kumar also gave contradictory versions. Motilal says Brijmohan put the house on fire whereas Ashok Kumar says Jagdeesh and Brijmohan both put the house on fire. None of the eyewitnesses has consistently made a statement that who had put the house on fire. Due to contradictory version of eye-witnesses, trial Court rightly disbelieved them. 12. All the eyewitnesses have stated that Jagdeesh and Brajmohan were present on the spot and burnt articles were also found on spot, but prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that who had burnt the house. Until and unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that which respondent had burnt the house and culpability is fixed on a particular respondent, accused-respondents cannot be held guilty for committing the act in furtherance of common object. 13. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error in the judgment passed by the trial Court in acquitting the accused for committing offence punishable under Sections 147, 336/149, 452/149, 323/149, 427/149, 436/149 and 342/149 of Indian Penal Code. 13. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error in the judgment passed by the trial Court in acquitting the accused for committing offence punishable under Sections 147, 336/149, 452/149, 323/149, 427/149, 436/149 and 342/149 of Indian Penal Code. Learned trial Court rightly convicted Jagdeesh for causing hurt to Bhagwandas. There is testimony of injured Bhagwandas and two eye-witnesses who have seen respondent No.1- Jagdeesh causing injury on Bhagwandas. 14. In view of aforesaid discussion of evidence available on record, the judgment passed by the trial Court is affirmed and appeal filed by the State Government is dismissed.