Palok Basu, J. - (1.) This Government Appeal has been filed by State of U.P. against the acquittal of seven respondents of charges under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 and 302/149 I.P.C. passed by Additional District Sessions Judge, Saharanpur on 27-5-1977 in Sessions Trial No. 332 of 1976. According to the prosecution case on 18-5-1976 at about 9-00 a.m. Goverdhan was brooming the land which he had purchased, while Jhandu, Lachchi and Soma were sitting in Lachchi's Baithak, when Prayag armed with Gandasa, Soma armed with spear and rest of the accused armed with lathis reached there and began to assault Goverdhan with their weapons, Soma, Lachchi and Jhandu rushed to save Goverdhan, but they were also beaten. Goverdhan died on the spot while the 66 others received injuries. A first information report about the incident was lodged by Rati Ram. The post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted by Dr. S.N. Bose. The injured were also examined by Dr. M. D. Sharma. The Investigating Officer Satendra Pal Singh visited the spot, made necessary memorandum and then filed a charge-sheet against the accused. The defence of the respondents was that the incident had not happened as alleged by the prosecution, inasmuch as three of the accused/respondents proved their injuries examined by Dr. M. D. Sharma, P. W. 1. They also examined two other witnesses in defence and one also proved the sending of the report by way of counter report to the S. P. and other authorities and the other namely Himmat, who described the defence version. The learned Trial Judge after considering the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution case is not proved. In coming to the conclusion the learned Judge recorded the following findings of fact : (i) According to prosecution the quarrel had taken place on the land alleged to have been purchased by Goverdhan when he was brooming it. When this was usual feature with him there was nothing important on the date of occurrence for the accused to come and assault him there. The accused do not put forth any claim over that land. (ii) The first information report is extra prompt. It does not state that accused were also assaulted either by deceased Goverdhan or by Soma, Jhandoo and Lachhi as has been alleged by the witnesses in defence. It does not state the possibility of witnesses reaching there. (iii) The witnesses mentioned in the first information report are all Gujars related to Dakhal Singh who is in hand and gloves with the prosecution side. (iv) No explanation has been offered about the injuries of accused and no injuries caused by sharp edged-weapon like Gandasa or piercing weapon like spear are found on the persons injured Jhandoo, Lachhi and Soma. Even on the death body of Goverdhan no piercing wound was found. (v) The witnesses are not only interested in Dakhal Singh but are rather resident of quite extreme south in the village and quite away from the place of occurrence. (vi) The admitted witnesses working in society who had witnessed the occurrence have been withheld. (vii) The statement of witnesses examined are full of contradictions and omissions throwing suspicion over the reliability of their statements. Sri Jagdish Tiwari, learned A.G.A. placed the entire record and after examining the evidence produced by the prosecution and also looking to the first information report and the testimony of the witnesses, it is to be said that the reasoning recorded by the learned Trial Judge are correct and born out by the record. This appeal consequently fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.;