JUDGMENT : K.S. Hegde, J. The appellant, his father and his two brothers were prosecuted for offences under Section 326 with Section 34, I. P. C. as well as under Section 450, I. P. C. The trial court acquitted the father of the appellant. In appeal, the High Court acquitted his brothers as well. The High Court convicted the appellant under Sections 326 and 450, I.P.C. Hence this appeal by special leave. 2. The prosecution case is that because of some dispute relating to money dealings the appellant and his brothers at the instigation of their father attacked P.W. 3, Mohinder Singh and caused injuries to him. The defence version is that on the day of the occurrence, in the evening, a girl belonging to the appellant's family and a girl belonging to P.W. 3's family quarrelled; then the mother of the appellant intervened at that stage P.W. 3 struck her with a brickbat and caused an injury to her; the appellant protested against the conduct of P.W. 3; then there was quarrel between him and P.W. 3; thereafter P. W. 3 attacked him; he defended himself; P.W. 3 caused him several injuries; in self defence he attacked him and caused him injuries. 3. It is satisfactorily proved that the appellant, appellant's mother as well as P.W. 3 were injured during the incident. The appellant as well as P.W. 3 had sustained incised injuries. The High Court has substantially accepted the defence version. It has come to the conclusion that the prosecution version as to how the incident commenced is not true. On the other hand, it has opined that the defence version is substantially true. It has held that the matual attack between the appellant and P.W. 3 started with P.W. 3 hitting the appellant's mother with a brickbat. It has rejected the prosecution evidence, in material aspects, as false. It has not come to the conclusion that the appellant was the first to attack P.W. 3. On the other hand it has found that the probabilities are in favour of the defence version. 4. The fact that P.W. 3 substained more injuries than the appellant is not a material circumstance. It is clear. he bargained for them. On the finding of the High Court itself it is clear that P.W. 3 was the aggressor. There are good reasons to accept the defence case in full. 4. The fact that P.W. 3 substained more injuries than the appellant is not a material circumstance. It is clear. he bargained for them. On the finding of the High Court itself it is clear that P.W. 3 was the aggressor. There are good reasons to accept the defence case in full. At any rate the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Hence the appellant is entitled to an acquittal. 5. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow this appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant. The bail bonds executed by the appellant are cancelled. Appeal allowed.