JUDGMENT Gangeshwar Prasad, J. - Baldeo and his wife Smt. Khiliya were tried by the Sessions Judge of Rampur for committing the murder of Gokul and for causing simple hurt to his son Bhura. The learned Judge convicted Baldeo Under Sections 304 IPC and 323 IPC and sentenced him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and six months' rigorous imprisonment respectively under the aforesaid sections; while he convicted Smt. Khiliya u/s 323 IPC only and sentenced her to simple imprisonment till the rising of the court. Baldeo has preferred an appeal against his convictions and sentences, while a notice has been issued to him by this Court to show cause why his acquittal of the offence u/s 302 IPC with which he stood charged should not be set aside and he should not be convicted under that section. 2. Appellant Baldeo is the son of Debi deceased from his wife Smt. Himiya. After the death of Debi Smt. Himiya married Gokul and from that union was born Bhura. The Appellant and his wife Smt. Khiliya lived in the same compound in which Gokul and Bhura lived, although they occupied a separate portion of it. The case of the prosecution is that there was a dispute between the Appellant on one hand and Gokul and Bhura on the other regarding the Division of the compound. Panchayats of the village people had been held for the settlement of the dispute and the Panches had determined the shares of the parties, but Baldeo had refused to accept and abide by their decision. It is alleged that at about 10.00 O'clock on the night of 9-6-1963, while it was drizzling, Baldeo and Bhura badly needed some dry place inside the compound for tying their cattle. Bhura asked the Appellant to let him have some place for the above purpose but the Appellant refused to do so and his, wife Smt. Khiliya started abusing Bhura.' Bhura asked Smt. Khiliya not to indulge in abusive language whereupon the Appellant and Smt. Khiliya began an assault on Bhura. The weapon said to have been used by Smt. Khiliya was a lathi, but there are divergent versions about the weapon which the Appellant used. The weapon said to have been used by Smt. Khiliya was a lathi, but there are divergent versions about the weapon which the Appellant used. However, according to the prosecution, Gokul arrived at the place of the assault in the meantime and he too was attacked by the Appellant and Smt. Khiliya and was in the end given a spear thrust in his chest by the Appellant. As a result of the spear injury Gokul died on 10-6-1963 in the hospital. 3. A report about this occurrence was lodged by Bhura at the police station a distance of about four miles from the village where the occurrence took place, at 6.15 a.m. the next morning and it was recorded as a report for an offence u/s 323/324 IPC. After the receipt of the result of the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Gokul the case was converted into one u/s 302 IPC. The post-mortem examination showed that Gokul had received two contused wounds on the head and a punctured wound (3/4" 1/4" deep down to the chest and the abdominal cavity) which had punctured the pleura underneath it and pierced the left lung through and through. The medical examination of Bhura disclosed that he had received twelve injuries, all caused by some blunt weapon. 4. Both the accused denied the charges. The Appellant Baldeo stated that he had given a portion of the compound in his possession to Gokul without the intervention of any Panchayat and there was no trouble on that account. What, according to the Appellant, happened was this. On the night of occurrence the Appellant brought a cart-load of onion, to his house. Smt. Khiliya requested Bhura to remove his bullocks from the Sehan to enable the Appellant to unload the cart at that place and told Bhura that the onion would soon be put elsewhere and the place would be vacated. This led to some verbal altercation between Smt. Khiliya and Smt. Ganga Devi, wife of Bhura, but the matter ended there and shortly after, the Appellant went away to participate in a dinner in the village. In his absence Bhura gave a beating to Smt. Khiliya. On returning home after the dinner the Appellant came to know of the beating given to his wife and he remonstrated with Gokul and Bhura and abused them. In his absence Bhura gave a beating to Smt. Khiliya. On returning home after the dinner the Appellant came to know of the beating given to his wife and he remonstrated with Gokul and Bhura and abused them. Thereupon Gokul and Bhura attacked the Appellant with spear and lathi and caused him injuries. The Appellant too managed to pick up a spear and wielded it in self-defence. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected this version of the occurrence given by the Appellant and we may at once say that he was right in doing so. It would appear that the Appellant lodged a report at the police station against Gokul and Bhura on 10-6-1963 on 6.40 a.m. According to this report, the incident happened in circumstances very different from those stated by the Appellant at the trial. The report said that Gokul had illicit intimacy with Bhura's wife and since Smt. Khiliya happened to see them in a compromising position the matter became known to the village people. It went on to state that at about 10.00 O'clock on the night of 9-6-1963 Bhura, armed with a spear and Gokul, armed with a lathi, attacked the Appellant and inflicted injuries on him. His wife Smt. Khiliya also received injuries at the hands of Bhura and Gokul in an attempt to save him. Obviously, the statement made by the Appellant in court is wholly inconsistent with the report and cannot be reconciled with it. But the matter does not end there. The Appellant examined Amir Husain as a defence witness whose testimony was more or less in accord with the report lodged by the Appellant and did not conform to the statement given by the Appellant in Court. The only result of these differences, however, is that there is no clear and consistent counter version of the occurrence which may be fit for reliance. But that does not relieve the prosecution of its duty to prove its own case or render the prosecution version of the occurrence acceptable. The only result of these differences, however, is that there is no clear and consistent counter version of the occurrence which may be fit for reliance. But that does not relieve the prosecution of its duty to prove its own case or render the prosecution version of the occurrence acceptable. Out of an understandable fear or nervousness a person accused of an offence may not be prepared to take the risk of giving a correct account of the incident which has led to his trial and may pin forward a story which may militate against what he has stated on an earlier occasion, be opposed to the testimony of His own witness or be unworthy of credit. But the prosecution can derive little assistance from this and it has to satisfy the court regarding the correctness of the account on which it seeks to establish the guilt of the accused. 5. The thing that stands out most prominently in the cast is that not only Gokul and Bhura but also the Appellant and his wife Smt. Khiliya received injuries in the course of the occurrence. The Appellant and Smt. Khiliya were medically examined on 10-6-1963 by the Civil Surgeon who found that the Appellant had seven injuries out of which three were lacerated wounds, two were contusions, one was an incised wound and cine was a punctured wound, whereas Smt. Khiliya had four injuries out of which two were lacerated wounds, one was a contusion and one was an incised wound. These injuries, according to the injury reports, had the same duration as the injuries caused to Gokul and Bhura. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have accepted that the lacerated wounds and the contusions found on the persons of the Appellant and Smt. Khiliya were inflicted by Gokul and Bhura, but with regard to the incised wounds and the punctured wound he has observed that they could very well have been manufactured for creating evidence for the plea of self-defence it view of the serious injuries received by Gokul. The circumstances of the case and the nature of the injuries do not, however, justify this observation. The Appellant had three lacerated wounds and all of them were on the head and he had also two contusions; Smt. Khiliya too had two lacerated wounds on the head and she further had a fairly serious contusion on her right forearm. The circumstances of the case and the nature of the injuries do not, however, justify this observation. The Appellant had three lacerated wounds and all of them were on the head and he had also two contusions; Smt. Khiliya too had two lacerated wounds on the head and she further had a fairly serious contusion on her right forearm. These injuries could by themselves have served as a basis for a plea of self-defence and it appears to be extremely unlikely that the Appellant and Smt. Khiliya should have thought them inadequate for sustaining the plea and should have subjected themselves to further pain and suffering by getting incised and punctured wounds created on their persons. The learned Judge has said that the incised and punctured wounds were of a superficial nature but this remark appears to be due to adequate attention not having been paid to the injury reports. It would be seen that the incised wound of the Appellant had a swelling in an area of 3"2" around it and the injury report shows that the Civil Surgeon advised X' ray examination of the wound. The punctured wound of the Appellant had also a similar swelling. The injuries cannot, therefore, be characterised as superficial. Certainly they were not as serious as the spear injury caused to Gokul, but it would be incorrect to dismiss them as superficial on that account. The learned Judge observed at the very outset of his discussion of the evidence relating to the occurrence that the first thing that strikes the mind about the prosecution case is the absence of any explanation of the sharp weapon injuries of the accused. But, as noted above, he observed that the injuries could very well have been manufactured and thus got over the difficulty presented by the case. We fail to discover any basis for the hypothesis which commended itself to the learned Judge and we are definitely of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case and having regard t the nature of the injuries the hypothesis cannot be considered reasonable. The prosecution has, therefore, to face the inconvenient fact that on the version put forward by it some of the injuries caused to the accused persons in the course of the incident in question remain unaccounted for. The prosecution has, therefore, to face the inconvenient fact that on the version put forward by it some of the injuries caused to the accused persons in the course of the incident in question remain unaccounted for. And in the context of the circumstances of the present case this fact would by itself rob the prosecution story of its claim to acceptance in the shape in which it has been told. 6. Indisputably, all the injuries found on the persons of the two accused were received by them in the occurrence and they were not negligible either in number or nature. Judging merely from the injuries received by the parties and (sic) weapons to which they can be ascribed it is doubtful whether the accused started the fight and acted as aggressors. In a case relating to a fight in which both parties are proved to have received injuries and the injuries of neither party can be regarded as negligible in number and nature, ascertainment of the manner in which the fight began and developed, is essential for deciding the guilt or innocence of a party. In such a case the acts done by a party would not by themselves show their criminality or justification and they would take their legal complexion entirely from the circumstances in which they are proved to have been done. Determination of the true sequence of events, therefore, becomes a matter of vital importance in a case of this kind and if the court on a consideration of all relevant material is in the end left in a state of reasonable doubt and uncertainty as to the origin of the fight and as to whether a situation had arisen in which the act? with which a party is charged became justified in law, the court cannot hold that party guilty. It has, consequently, to be seen whether on the evidence produced in this case the true sequence of events can be determined and whether the evidence makes conclusive what is left altogether inconclusive by the injuries themselves and establishes the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 7. The prosecution examined Bhura, Ram (sic) Faqira, Jairam and Patiram (PWs 1 to 5) as witnesses of fact. 7. The prosecution examined Bhura, Ram (sic) Faqira, Jairam and Patiram (PWs 1 to 5) as witnesses of fact. Bhura stated that on the night of occurrence when he asked Smt. Khiliya to refrain from abusing him, which she had started doing upon his request for being allowed some space to tie his cattle, the Appellant and Smt. Khiliya brought out lathis and began striking him. He further stated that at a later stage in the fight the Appellant threw away his lathi and took out the spear with which he caused the fatal injury to Gokul. According to the first information report lodged by him, however, the Appellant had a spear from the very start and to the same effect was his statement before the Investigating Officer. In the court of the committing Magistrate he had gone to the length of saying that the Appellant had struck him with the spear although the injury report clearly shows that he had no spear injury. When confronted with these inconsistencies he repudiated his earlier statement and stated that before the arrival of Gokul the Appellant had used his spear as a lathi by holding its blade in his hands but thereafter he used it as a spear. Regarding their own part in the fight he stated that although Gokul had a lathi he did not wield it and so far as he himself was concerned he only picked up a lathi lying at the place of occurrence and used it in defence. The account given by this witness is so discrepant and unnatural that it must be rejected as false and totally untrustworthy. The next witness, Ram Gomad, stated that when he reached the scene of occurrence he found the Appellant and Bhura exchanging lathi blows. Obviously, therefore, he was not in a position to depose to the manner in which the night started; but he gave an account of its later development which should at once be rejected as untrue. According to him, the Appellant was in the first instance using his spear as a lathi against Bhura by holding its blade in his hands, then used it as a spear when Gokul arrived and then again reverted to using it as a lathi. Further, the witness stated that Smt. Khiliya struck Bhura with a wooden pole which was supporting the thatch covering of the house. Further, the witness stated that Smt. Khiliya struck Bhura with a wooden pole which was supporting the thatch covering of the house. The pole got broken and then Bhura picked up a broken piece thereof and used it for defending himself. As for Gokul this witness too deposed that he did not use his lathi, although he had stated before the Investigating Officer that Bhura and Gokul had used lathi and spear in the fight. The third witness, Faqira, stated that on reaching the scene he found all the four, viz. Gokul, Bhura, Smt. Khiliya and the Appellant, engaged in a lathi fight but subsequently the Appellant threw away his lathi and then picked up a spear and used it. The fourth witness, Jairam, also deposed to having seen on his arrival the aforesaid four persons fighting with lathis, but later, according to him, the Appellant brought out a spear. Before the Investigating Officer, however, his statement was that when he reached the place of occurrence he saw the Appellant having spear in his hand. The last, of this set of witnesses, Patiram, stated that on his arrival he found that the Appellant, armed with a spear and Smt. Khiliya, armed with a lathi, were attacking Bhura and when Gokul came to intervene the Appellant gave him a spdar blow. In his statement before the Investigating Officer, however, this witness had said that Gokul too was armed with a lathi and was taking part in the fight. Besides these witnesses, we halve the statements of some other persons who were examined as court-witnesses be the learned Sessions Judge. The first witness was Smt. Himiya, the mother of Bhura and the Appellant. According to her, the trouble started with a quarrel between the wives of Bhura and the Appellant and it led to a fight between the men folk. She could not, however, see what actually happened as she has a very bad eyesight. Her statement is, therefore, entirely valueless. The next court-witness was Smt. Ganga Devi, wife of Bhura. In her examination-in chief she supported the story given out in the first information report made by Bhura, but in her cross-examination on behalf of the accused she stated that she saw the occurrence from inside her room and did not come out of it. The next court-witness was Smt. Ganga Devi, wife of Bhura. In her examination-in chief she supported the story given out in the first information report made by Bhura, but in her cross-examination on behalf of the accused she stated that she saw the occurrence from inside her room and did not come out of it. She also stated that she could not say with what weapon the Appellant struck Bhura and when pressed further she said that she did not see the Appellant striking Bhura at all. The statement of this; witness is, therefore, equally valueless. Shaukat and Nathu, the other two court witnesses, stated that they had not seen the occurrence, the former having reached the scene after the fight was over and the latter having not gone there at all. 8. Manifestly, the Evidence relating to the occurrence is a confused jumble of inconsistencies, improbabilities and falsities. The witnesses had a short story to tell and yet on almost all material points they have contradicted one another and on some they have also (sic) themselves. It was probably realised that it would be difficult to believe that Smt. Khiliya caused twelve lathi injuries to Bhura and two lathi injuries to Gokul deceased, while the Appellant succeeded in causing only one spear injury to Gokul in the course of the fight and in a clumsy attempt to bring the prosecution story into accord with the medical reports it was said by the witnesses that initially the Appellant used his spear as a lathi by holding its blade in his hands and it was only later that he used it in the normal fashion. One witness went a step further and said that the Appellant changed the mode of using his weapon twice during the course of the fight. Attributing an abnormal mode of the use of a weapon of attack to a person is a familiar artifice adopted for making the account of an assault consistent with the injuries resulting from it, but in the instant case the abnormality in the mode of using a weapon was carried too far and the improbable was made to verge on the ludicrous. Further, on the testimony of these witnesses the incised wounds and the punctured wound caused to the Appellant and Smt. Khiliya remained completely unexplained and this feature of the case is by itself sufficient to demonstrate that the witnesses did not give a true version of the occurrence. In this state of things it is not possible to hold that the Appellant and Smt. Khiliya started the attack and acted as aggressors. It is quite likely that on, the refusal of the Appellant to allow some space to Bhura to tie his cattle Gokul deceased and Bhura felt infuriated and launched an attack on the Appellant and Smt. Khiliya and if these were the circumstances the Appellant and Smt. Khiliya cannot, having regard to the weapons which their assailants had and actually used, be said to have committed any offence. We are clearly of opinion that on the evidence adduced in the case the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and they are entitled to acquittal. 9. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the conviction and the sentence of the Appellant are set aside and he is acquitted. The notice issued to the Appellant is discharged. Smt. Khiliya has not preferred an appeal, but we set aside the conviction of Smt. Khiliya also under our revisional powers and acquit her.