IMPORTANT POINT
When from state of evidence possibility of some other accused having attacked the deceased and of falsely implicating Al& A2 could not with reasonable certainly be excluded, acquittal of Al & A2 could not be interfered.

ORDER

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court made in Criminal Appeal No. 424 of 1985 on September 3, 1986. The case of the prosecution is that on September 21, 1984 at about 4.30 p.m. Smt. Chandro, a witness of the prosecution, had a quarrel with one Smt. Sunita who had drawn. water stealthily from the well dug by the prosecution party. Pursuant to that, when Rajpal-deceased was proceeding by the side of the house of the accused at 5.45 p.m., there ensued a quarrel between Subhash and Rajpal, now deceased, and others. In the quarrel the intervener had separated them. While deceased was proceeding towards his house at 6 p.m., it is the case of the prosecution that all the accused, who were standing near the house of Medu, one of the accused, had attacked the deceased, and when other parties had rome to intervene, they were also beaten up. The deceased almost died instantaneously; after he was taken to the hospital he was declared dead. Thereafter a report was lodged at about 11.30 p.m. by Medu, PW-9. Investigation was made. The accused were arrested and were charged for various offence including the offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 324, 325, etc. The trial Court acquitted five accused and convicted A 1 to A8 for various offences, including the offences under Section 302 read with Section 149. On appeal, the High Court set aside the convictions and acquitted them of all the charges. Thus this appeal by special leave.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the medical evidence established that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the injuries to the lung and heart, which,. in the ordinary course of nature, causes death. Therefore, there is no dispute as regards the homicide of the deceased Rajpal. He contended that PWs. 9, 12 and 13 are the injured witnesses. There is also an independent witness. All have spoken of the participation of the accused in the commission of the crime. The prosecution, therefore, has established the case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court, therefore, was not right in giving benefit of doubt to the respondents.

3. Having gone through the evidence and the reasoning given by the High Court, we do not think that the case warrants interference. It is seen that the prosecution has deliberately separated two incidents which occurred at 5.45 p.m. and 6 p.m. on that date. A reading of the evidence clearly goes to show that after the first incident of quarrel between the ladies had taken place, when the deceased-Rajpal was passing through the road and had come near the house of the accused, there appears to have arisen a quarrel between the accused party and the prosecution party. Both the incidents had taken place during the course of the same transaction. The question then is: whether it is possible to believe the evidence of the injured witnesses implicitly to base the conviction of the respondents? It would appear from the evidence adduced that there is no common object or intention to kill the deceased. It would appear that it is a case of free fight between the accused party and the prosecution party on account of the quarrels between the two families. There is evidence that some of the accused suffered injuries in the same transaction and the prosecution has not explained injuries on them. In those circumstances, the liability of each of the; accused has to be considered independently. I In that attempt, we have scanned the evidence of injured witness carefully vis-a-vis the reasoning given by the High Court. It would appear that all the witnesses have improved upon their version stated in the statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. In fact, the Sessions Court itself has noted that some of the witnesses have spoken falsely in their evidence with regard to some of the accused. Under those circumstances, would it be possible to place implicit reliance on the evidence of these