ORDER

These two appeals by special leave call in question the judgment of acquittal recorded by the High Court on 27th April, 1984, setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the respondents by the trial court vide judgment dated 21st December, 1981.

2. According to the prosecution case, on 18th June, 1981 between 6 and 6.30 a.m. at the gate of Pipar Street at Village Kodinar, Distt. Amreli, the respondents in prosecution of their common object to commit the murder of deceased Thakershi Anand Ji and to cause hurt to any person who may interfere to save the deceased, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and not only caused the murder of Thakershi Anand Ji but also caused injuries to a number of prosecution witnesses. It is alleged that there was bad blood between the accused party and the complainant party on account of political rivalry. The trial court, after recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the respondents for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149, and 302/149 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for offences under sections 302/149 IPC and to varying terms of imprisonment for other offences. On appeal, the High Court, as already noticed, set aside the conviction and sentence of all the respondents and acquitted them.

3. Out of the respondents, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 are brothers. Accused Nos. 4 and 6 and also brothers and accused No. 3 is their cousin. They all belong to Koli community. So far as prosecution witnesses are concerned, PW-4 Vanravan Anand Ji is the brother of deceased Thakershi Anand Ji while other witnesses belong to their group. PW-4 is the first informant in the case.

4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the High Court and examined the testimony of material witnesses produced by the prosecution.

5. Apart from the reasons given by the High Court, while recording the order of acquittal, which reasons to our mind are neither perverse nor unreasonable, we find that there are some other circumstances also which go to indicate that the prosecution did not come to the Court with clean hands.

6. PW-5 is an injured witness. The version of Nissar Hussain, PW-5 disclosed to Ibrahimkhan, PW-9, who gave him a lift on his motor bike to the hospital, was the first in point of time made by the injured PW-5 to any one. In that version, allegations regarding the assault on the deceased and causing of injuries to other witnesses are conspicuously absent. Had he actually witnesses the occurrence, he would not have omitted to mention about the serious assault on the deceased to PW-9 more particularly because he allegedly received the injury while trying to save the deceased. This omission creates a doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case.

7. Again Vanravan Anand Ji, PW-4 is the brother of the deceased. The explanation given by him for his presence at the spot so early in the morning, was disclosed by him for the first time in the Court. He admitted during his cross-examination that he had not stated either in the first information report dated 18th June, 1981 or in his additional statement recorded on 22nd July, 1981 that Kalumiyan and Sadiqbapu were to accompany him on the day of incident for going to Amreli from Kodinar. According to PW-4, on seeing the assault on Thakershi Anand Ji deceased and others, he tried to intervene and in the process received an injury on his head with a stick at the hands of one of the respondents. He then went to Bachubhai, PW-8, his brother-in-law to request him to bring the lorry to take the injured to the hospital. He did not at that time tell him (PW-8) that he had also received an injury at the time of the assault. According to PW-4 and PW-8, they removed the deceased in the lorry, first to the Government Hospital and then took the deceased in the car of PW-4 to sugar factory hospital. Both of them stated that they alone had lifted the deceas