JUDGMENT

ORDER:— On the morning of July 2, 1977 Hari Singh. since deceased, had gone to his field and had sown jawar. Later the three appellants and 9 others are stated to have ploughed his field in his absence. When the deceased returned to his field in the afternoon he saw the appellants and his companions ploughing his field. He was advised to report the matter to the police. At about 2 p.m. he left for the police station. While he was passing by a place known asSukha Jhorethe appellants and his companions attacked him. He ran into the field of P.W. 7 Rati Ram where he was overtaken and belaboured to death. The deceased had as many as 16 injuries on his person as is evident from the evidence of P.W. 10 Dr. Hari Om Singh who performed the autopsy on the next day. It may here be mentioned that according to the medical evidence all the injuries were possible by hard and blunt weapons.

2. The First Information Report was lodged at about mid-night by P.W. 1 Gurobai, the wife of the deceased. P. W. 4 Jaswant Singh and P.W. 6 Paramjeet kaur, the son and daughter of the deceased were cited as eye-witnesses along with P.W.1. In addition, thereto P.W. 7 Rati Ram, P.W. 8 Jorsingh, P.W. 9 Tophansingh and P.W. 11 Baldeva who had their fields in the neighbourhood were also cited as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. In all 12 persons were put up for trial before the Additional Sessions Juge, Guna (M P).

3. Out of the 12 accused persons two namely Raju alias Rajinder and Jagdish were acquitted as their names did not figure in the FIR. The trial Court convicted the remaining 10 persons under Ss. 148, 149 and 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment. These 10 persons challenged their conviction and sentence in the High Court. The High Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution evidence established the participation of the present 3 appellants but not the others. The High Court, therefore, confirmed the conviction of present 3 appellants and acquitted the 7 others, against which acquittal the State has not preferred any appeal. We are, therefore, concerned with the question whether the High Court was justified in confirming the conviction of the appellants before us.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the trial Court based its conviction on the evidence of the wife, son and daughter of the deceased who claimed to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The trial Court discarded the evidence of P.Ws. 7, 8,9 and 11 on the ground that they had turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution version. It is, therefore, pointed out that since the High Court had come to the conclusion that P.Ws. 1, 4 and 6 were not eye-witnesses to the occurrence as they were not present when the incident took place, there was no dependable evidence to convict the present appellants. The High Court, however, came to the conclusion that P.Ws. 7 and 8, though treated hostile in regard to the other acquitted persons could be relied upon so far as the involvement of the present appellants is concerned. The High Court, however, did not think it wise to place reliance on the evidence of P.W. 9 and P.W. 1 1 as they did not specifically implicate the appellants by name and their evidence was of a general nature, in that, they had seen the deceased being assaulted by 3 or 4 persons. Counsel for the appellant, therefore, submitted that the conviction of the appellant is solely based on the testimony of two hostile witnesses P.Ws. 7 and 8. He further pointed out that the prosecution had tried to pin down these witnesses by getting their statements recorded under S. 164, Cr. P.C. Lastly, he contended that there was an effort on the part of the prosecution to implicate as many as 12 persons and when 9 of them were acquitted by the two Courts below it would be hazardous to place implicit reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8. In any case, submitted counsel, the appellants were entitled to benefit of doubt and deserve to be acqu