JUDGMENT V.D. Bhargava, J. - This is a reference u/s 307, Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial was held with the aid of five jurors. Three of them were of opinion that the accused was guilty, while the other two held the opposite view and gave their verdict that the accused was not guilty. The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad was of opinion that there were grave doubts, and circumstances were such that the verdict was perverse and, therefore, he has referred this case u/s 307, Code of Criminal Procedure with the recommendation that the accused be acquitted. 2. Twelve persons, Chhanga Singh, Sheo Pratap Singh, Sobnath Singh, Ram Kailash, Deo Dat, Barma Din, Baijnath, Mashuq Khan, Sridhar, Raj Karan, (sic) and Mahadeo, were charged under Sections 147, 323 read with Section 149, 325 read with Section 149 and 307 read with Section 149, I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Sonai Singh and Jaikaran Singh lived in adjoining houses in village Rathaiyan, police station Sarai Inayat, Tehsil Phulpur district Allahabad. On the 3rd August 1950 two girls of the family of Sonai Singh, viz., Kalaa and Jagannathi together with Raghu Raj Singh, nephew of Jai Karan, had gone to the School. While they were returning at about 11 a. m. and came to the Muslim Tola near the house of one Rafi they started quarrelling among themselves. Sonai Singh happened to pass at that time that way, while going to his field. He saw the three children quarrelling and abusing each other. He scolded Raghuraj Sngh and told them not to quarrel and to go home. Raghuraj Singh went to his house weeping. Sonai Singh returned at about 2 p.m. and was sitting on the chabutra at his door. Jai Karan Singh along with the accused of the case were sitting in the usara of Jai Karan Singh and all of them were armed with lathis. It is admitted that the custom of the villagers is to go about with lathis. The house of Jai Karan Singh is on the west of the house of Sonai Singh and there is a chabutra and a drain between the two houses, the chabutra of Sonai Singh being to the west of the house. It is admitted that the custom of the villagers is to go about with lathis. The house of Jai Karan Singh is on the west of the house of Sonai Singh and there is a chabutra and a drain between the two houses, the chabutra of Sonai Singh being to the west of the house. Sonai Singh never suspected that these people would make an attack on him and, therefore, he remained sitting, but actually, the prosecution story is that Jai Karan Singh came to the darwaza of Sonai Singh and began to beat him with lathis and he was struck on the head, back etc. and injured. He raised an alarm and also took his lathi and began to ply it to ward off the blows in order to save himself. On hearing the alarm Borai Singh came to the spot and told the accused not to invade at the door of another person and do martpit and asked them to go back to their houses. It may be noted that Borai Singh was the Sabhapati of the village. Thereupon, it is stated, Jai Karan Singh said, Beat the sela also. He is a partisan of Sonai Singh and is a Sabhapati. 4. Thereupon some of the accused began to beat Borai Singh also while the others continued beating Sonai Singh. Both Sonai Singh and Borai Singh also plied lathis in self defence. On the one side, there were about 15 people and on the other side there were these two only. Later on Hiramani, Ram Pratap alias Gopali, and Anant Bahadur alias Bala also came to the spot and they began to fight the assailants with lathis in order to save Borai Singh and nonai Singh. Hiramani and Ram Pratap were also injured during the fight. Thereafter, witnesses came to the spot and were watching. In the meantime, it was given out that Borai Singh was dead and all the assailants ran away. Jai Karan Singh was also injured. Among the assailants Sitla Baksh and Sobnath were injured. Hiramani and Ram Pratap carried Borai Singh to his house and Sonai Singh's aunt and Anant Bahadur carried Sonai Singh to his house. The report of this incident of the 3rd August was lodged at the police station on the 5th at 6.15 p.m. The police station is only four miles from the village where this incident took place. Hiramani and Ram Pratap carried Borai Singh to his house and Sonai Singh's aunt and Anant Bahadur carried Sonai Singh to his house. The report of this incident of the 3rd August was lodged at the police station on the 5th at 6.15 p.m. The police station is only four miles from the village where this incident took place. The reason for the delay in lodging the report is that Sonai Singh was in agony due to the injuries and there was nobody available, as the men of the village had run away. There was another report lodged by the accused Sheo Pratap Singh; it was lodged on the 3rd August 1951. 5. According to that report a quarrel had taken place between the children of the family of Sheo Pratap and those of the family of Ahibaran Singh. Jaikaran, uncle of Sheo Pratap, wanted to pacify the children. In the meantime, Manpher Singh and Anant Bahadur Singh sons of Sonai Singh, Hiramani Singh son of Ahibaran Singh and Tejjan Singh son of Borai Singh began to beat Jai Karan Singh with lathis who fell down. Sheo Pratap Singh was at his field and on hearing the cries of his uncle Ram Kailash, Baram Din, Baijnath, Mahadeo and Sheo Pratap rushed from different directions and when they saw their uncle lying unconscious with his back upwards and Manpher Singh, Anant Bahadur Singh, Hiramani and Tejjan beating him continuously with lathis and polas they also challenged them and then the assailants ran away and Jai Karan Singh died later in the night at 10 O'clock. Thus it appears that some fight is admitted on both sides. A counter case was started on the report of Sheo Pratap Singh and I understand that that case has resulted in a conviction which has been maintained by this Court and also by the Supreme Court. The accused have pleaded that they have been implicated on account of enmity or because they were prosecution witnesses in the counter case. Among the accused Sheo Pratap Singh, Ram Kailash, Baramdin, Baijnath and Mahadeo are witnesses in the cross case on whose evidence there had already been a conviction. The brother of Chhangu. the brother of Mashuq Khan and nephew of Jethu accused were also prosecution witnesses in the other case. Among the accused Sheo Pratap Singh, Ram Kailash, Baramdin, Baijnath and Mahadeo are witnesses in the cross case on whose evidence there had already been a conviction. The brother of Chhangu. the brother of Mashuq Khan and nephew of Jethu accused were also prosecution witnesses in the other case. There was another incident which is alleged to have taken place on the 5th August, 1951 at 10 a.m. The report was lodged by one Shitala Baksh Singh. In that report he alleged that he had prepared a drain for taking out water from his house. At about 10 a.m. Borai Singh, Sonai Singh, Brij Raj Singh, Brij Mohan Singh, Ram Pratap Singh, Mahabir, Bhairondin, Raghunath, Jageshar, Bhagwati Din, Rafi and Mahanand came armed with lathis, filled the drain and began to dig out another drain from his door. On remonstration he was given a beating. On hearing his cries several persons came, but Ram Pratap Singh and Borai Singh beat them with lathis also. Thus there appears to be another fight on the 5th August. 6. The charges under Sections 325 read with Section 139, and 323 read with Section 149 only were triable by jury, while the charges under Sections 147 and 307 read with Section 149 were triable with the aid of jurors sitting as assessors. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted them of the charges under Sections 147, and 307 read with Section 149, I.P.C. Thus in this reference I am only concerned with the charges under Sections 325 read with Section 149 and 323 read with Section 149. Before dealing with the merits of the case I propose to deal with Section 307, Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-clause (3) of Section 307 is as follows: In dealing with the case so submitted the High Court may exercise any of the powers which it may exercise on an appeal, and subject thereto it shall, after considering the entire evidence and after giving due weight to the opinions of the Sessions Judge and the jury, acquit or convict (such accused) of any offence of which the jury could have convicted him upon the charge framed and placed before it; 7. Their Lordships of the Privy Council have discussed this section in Ramanugrah Singh v. Emperor 1946 A.W.R. (P.C.) 115. Their Lordships of the Privy Council have discussed this section in Ramanugrah Singh v. Emperor 1946 A.W.R. (P.C.) 115. This case came up for consideration by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Akhlakali Hayatalli v. The State of Bombay 1954 A.W.R. (H.C.) 382. They laid down, approving the Privy Council decision, that The High Court will only interfere with the verdict of the jury if it finds the verdict perverse in the sense of being "unreasonable", "manifestly wrong" or "against the weight of evidence". 8. They also approved the dictum of the Privy Council that In their Lordships' view the paramount consideration in the High Court must be whether the ends of justice require that the verdict of the jury should be set aside and held that If the facts and circumstances of the case are such that a reasonable body of men could arrive at the one conclusion or the other, it is not competent to the Sessions Judge or the High Court to substitute their verdict in place of the verdict which has been given by the jury. The jury are the sole judges of the facts and it is the right of the accused to have the benefit of the verdict of the jury. 9. The prosecution in this case has produced seven witnesses, Sonai Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Pratap Singh (P.W. 2), Borai Singh (P.W. 3), Ram Saran (P.W. 4), Punni LaL (P.W. 5), Ajodhya Singh (P.W. 7), and Bani (P.W. 9). They are witnesses of the occurrence, while Mahadeo Singh (P.W. 6), and Mohammad Siddiq (P.W. 8) and Sri Ejaz Husain (P.W. 10) the investigating officer are police witnesses. These witnesses have no doubt supported the prosecution story which 1 need not repeat in detail. I have only to see if there are facts and circumstances in the case of such a nature, on account of which no reasonable person should have given a verdict of guilty. 10. The incident is alleged to have taken place on the 3rd August and it is said that Borai Singh got six injuries in consequence of which he became unconscious, yet it is surprising that no report was lodged for more than 48 hours. 10. The incident is alleged to have taken place on the 3rd August and it is said that Borai Singh got six injuries in consequence of which he became unconscious, yet it is surprising that no report was lodged for more than 48 hours. Similarly, it is astonishing that Borai Singh was not medically examined, in spite of such serious injuries, for three days, and Ram Pratap Singh, Sonai Singh, Hiramani and Sobnath the other four persons, who are said to have been injured were not examined till the 7th August. The first information report which is lodged so late even then did not contain the names of all the witnesses. To me, this circumstance is of great significance. It is highly improbable, rather, I would say it is impossible, that if the injuries of such a serious nature had been inflicted on Borai Singh and also injuries were inflicted on four other persons, no report would be lodged for two days. Borai Singh, when he was examined, was unconscious. There was no satisfactory evidence to show why, if he was injured on the 3rd August and had been lying unconscious since the 3rd, nothing was done till the morning of the 6th August. The other incident of the 3rd, of which a report was lodged, is said to have taken place at 4 p.m. in which Jai Karan Singh was seriously injured, while this incident took place at 2 p.m. If the report of the other incident in which even a death had occurred and people would be upset could be lodged on that day, there seems to be no reason why the report by the complainant in this case should not have been lodged on that very day, and in any event, at least on the 4th. Apart from Sonai Singh, who might be in pain, there were others, who could have informed the police. There were two sons of Sonai Singh, viz., Manpher Singh and Anant Bahadur Singh as also Tej Singh alias Tejjan Singh son of Ahiba ran Singh mukhia, Brijraj Singh and Brij Mohan brothers of Ahibaran who were all literate. Why did they not make the report? There were two sons of Sonai Singh, viz., Manpher Singh and Anant Bahadur Singh as also Tej Singh alias Tejjan Singh son of Ahiba ran Singh mukhia, Brijraj Singh and Brij Mohan brothers of Ahibaran who were all literate. Why did they not make the report? It may be noted that Borai Singh was the Sabhapati and Ahibaran Singh was the mukhia, whose son Hiramani is said to have been injured Why could they not at least inform the police if such an incident had taken place. Sobnath Singh accused had stated that he had beaten Borai Singh and others on August 5 and not on August 3, when Borai Singh and others formed an unlawful assembly and beat him and his father Shitla Baksh Singh. If Borai Singh, Sonai Singh and others were injured on the 5th the medical examination of these persons on the 6th or 7th would fit in exactly. Borai Singh having been injured in the evening of the 5th would naturally be examined on the morning of the 6th. But it is (sic) that a person having been injured on the 3rd, so seriously as to remain unconscious, would not be attended to for three days. There can be no doubt, that the second first information report was made on the 5th August by the complainants of this case, when they had known that Jai Karan was dead and there was danger of their being implicated in that case. The investigating officer Sri Ejaz Husain (P.W. 10) has deposed that even on the 5th when Sonai Singh had gone at about noon he did not make any report and he told the investigating officer that he would have a report lodged after having taken legal advice from vakils and thereafter Sonai Singh went away. Thus there can be no doubt, that Sonai Singh was still making enquiries as to what the police were doing. The second police officer had gone on the 4th August to make investigation and he searched the houses of Sonai Singh, Hiramani Singh and Borai Singh. Sonai Singh met Sri Ejaz Husain on the 4th August. Thus there can be no doubt, that Sonai Singh was still making enquiries as to what the police were doing. The second police officer had gone on the 4th August to make investigation and he searched the houses of Sonai Singh, Hiramani Singh and Borai Singh. Sonai Singh met Sri Ejaz Husain on the 4th August. If Sonai Singh had been injured, and injured to such an extent that he had pain for two days and he could not go to make a report, can it for a moment be believed that he would not show his injuries if they had been inflicted on the 3rd when the police was at his house? Actually Sri Ejaz Husain had said that he did not see any injury on the person of Sonai Singh at that time. With this affirmative statement of Sri Ejaz Husain on the record how can any reasonable man think that Sonai Singh was injured on the 3rd when he had no injury mark on the 4th. The question of injury about Borai Singh is still more startling. Witnesses for the prosecution allege that he had been injured on the 3rd, and injured to such an extent that he had become unconscious. He had as many as six injuries and his later examination showed that he had also fracture in his skull; yet when his house is searched on the 4th he is not found at his house by Sri Ejaz Husain (P.W. 10). The house of Hiramani was also searched. Why did he not show his injuries and the injuries of Borai Singh to the sub-inspector? There appears to be no reason to disbelieve Sri Ejaz Husain that he did not see any injury on the person of Sonai Singh and that he did not find Borai Singh at his house. If these facts are established beyond any doubt that they had no injury on that day, the whole prosecution falls to the ground. In my opinion, these facts have been fully established. Sonai Singh, Borai Singh, Ram Pratap etc. were implicated in a serious crime of the murder of Jaikaran Singh and they would be out to depose anything, and their evidence should, by any reasonable person, be viewed with great caution. In my opinion, these facts have been fully established. Sonai Singh, Borai Singh, Ram Pratap etc. were implicated in a serious crime of the murder of Jaikaran Singh and they would be out to depose anything, and their evidence should, by any reasonable person, be viewed with great caution. There is a further circumstance which has come out in the evidence of Mohammad Siddiq (P.W. 8) that when Sonai Singh returned to the thana in the evening of the 5th he had a bandage over his injury which means that he must have been to the doctor at Allahabad and got his injuries dressed. On the other hand, Sonai Singh in his cross-examination had stated that when he had gone to lodge the report, he was bleeding from his head injuries. In either case, if his pain was of such a nature that he could go to Allahabad to get his injuries dressed by a doctor why could he not make a report at the police station and then go to the dispensary? On the other hand, if his statement is to be believed that he went on the 5th to make a report and was bleeding it would show that the injury was of the 5th and not of the 3rd. It is inconceivable that an injury received on the 3rd August would still be bleeding till 6.15 p.m. on the 5th August. 11. Reliance was placed by the State counsel on the statement of the doctors that the injuries on Sonai Singh, Hiramani and Ram Pratap had been caused on the 3rd August at 2 p.m. I cannot place any reliance on such a report. It is very difficult to give duration of abrasions and contusions whether it was two days or 4 days, and what the doctor has written is only that the injuries are said to have been sustained on the 3rd August, 1951 in noon time and that that was probable. If the doctor do not apply their own skill and experience independently and if they are guided by the facts told to them that the injury had been caused on a certain date and time, then their opinion is not of much value, and the remarks made by the doctors in the injury report clearly show that they were guided by the suggestion made to them. 12. 12. As regards the place where the incident is alleged to have taken place, the prosecution story is that it had taken place at the sahen-darwaza of Sonai Singh and it was alleged by the prosecution that Borai Singh fell down as also Jaikaran Singh, both had such injuries owing to which they were bleeding and at least Sonai Singh had said that he was bleeding. Then in that event, there should have been blood at the sahen darwaza. The investigating officer Sri Ejaz Husain (P.W. 10), when he went to the spot, did not find any mark of blood, and, therefore, he did not make any site-plan. Sonai Singh in the court of Session said that he did not regain consciousness for a considerable length of time. But before the committing Magistrate he said that the incident took place at 12 noon and he recovered consciousness at 3 p.m. Sonai Singh admits that Jai Karan Singh was also injured and that on the morning of the 4th he heard that Jaikaran Singh died in the night. If Jaikaran Singh was injured in the same fight in which Sonai Singh and Borai Singh had been injured and if the persons who had beaten them have been found to be guilty on the ground of their being aggressors, the only reasonable conclusion is that they were the agressors and Jaikaran Singh's party including these accused were the victims. 13. I need not go into the numerous contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the different witnesses made before the committing Magistrate and the court of Session, because that would really be assessing the evidence on merits. I have only given such circumstances which to my mind are of conclusive nature and on account of which no reasonable man, in my opinion, could give a verdict of guilty. 14. In this case it is to be noted that the verdict of the jury is not unanimous. Three jurors had said guilty while two had said not guilty. I think that in attaching any weight to the verdict of the jury this fact cannot be ignored. If it is just by a majority of one, the value of that verdict is very much reduced. Three jurors had said guilty while two had said not guilty. I think that in attaching any weight to the verdict of the jury this fact cannot be ignored. If it is just by a majority of one, the value of that verdict is very much reduced. In State v. Tirath Das 1954 A.W.R. (H.C.) 191 a bench of this Court had held that: Difference has to be made, no doubt, between a verdict of jury which is unanimous, and a verdict which is upon a bare majority. An unanimous verdict will undoubtedly carry more weight with the High Court, and though due weight must be given even to the majority verdict, it is not entitled to that amount of weight which will be given to an unanimous verdict. 15. I most respectfully agree with this dictum and in this case I do not think that the verdict is entitled to that sanctity which it would have had, had it been an unanimous one. 16. I would, therefore, accept the reference and acquit the accused. Desai, J. 17. I do not find it easy to hold that the verdict of the jury was perverse or unreasonable. It was based upon direct evidence. The jury was the sole judge of facts. There were undoubtedly circumstances which caused a doubt about the truth of the prosecution case, but it was for the jury to decide whether the prosecution case was doubtful or not. The learned Sessions Judge is of the view that the jury's verdict was unreasonable. My learned brother also is of that view. I do not feel strong enough to record dissent. I, therefore, concur in the order proposed. 18. The reference is accepted and the accused are acquitted of all the offences. Their bail bonds are discharged.