JUDGMENT Gangeshwar Prasad, J. - The nine appellants in this appeal were tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad for murder, rioting and causing hurt. Each of them was awarded a sentence of life imprisonment under Section 3021149, I. P. C. and sentences of various terms of imprisonment under other appropriate sections of the I. P. C. with the 'direction that all the sentences would run concurrently. 2. The incident which led to the prosecution of the appellants was a fight between two parties. It occurred at noon on the 5th of May, 1965 in village Gulampur, Police Station Hasanpur, district Moradabad, and resulted in the death of two persons and injuries to three others of one party and the death of one person and injuries to six others of the other party. The case of the prosecution is as follows. Village Gulampur has only one well and all the residents of the village have to rely on it for water. At the time of the occurrence the water in the well was only knee deep. While one Haria Khagi was drawing water from the well his bucket fell down into it. He called Harnam for taking out his bucket. Harnam descended into the well and Haria stood on the platform of the well holding the rope. Just then Shibbi, who had his cattle shed near the well, happened to reach there for drawing water, He asked Haria why the latter was making the water of the well muddy. This led to an altercation in the course of which Haria and Shibbi grappled with each other and Haria threw Shibbi down on the ground. Shibbi thereupon raised an alarm in response to which Chiddan, Shiv Sahai, Reti, Buddhan, Tejram, Gullan, Chuttan and Doongar appellants along with Chiranji deceased reached there. Among them Doongar appellant was armed with boon (a sharp pointed weapon) and the rest with lathis. They caught hold of Haria and started pushing him down into the well. Haria cried out for help whereupon Ganga Sahai, Ram Charan, Nathan, Manori, Khacheru and some other persons of the village arrived there. The appellants, including Shibbi who brought out a lathi from his cattle-shed; and Chiranji then launched an attack on the persons who had come to the rescue of Haria, as a result of which Khacheru, Gur Sahai, Ram Charan, Nathan and Manori were injured. The appellants, including Shibbi who brought out a lathi from his cattle-shed; and Chiranji then launched an attack on the persons who had come to the rescue of Haria, as a result of which Khacheru, Gur Sahai, Ram Charan, Nathan and Manori were injured. Out of them Khacheru died immediately and Gur Sahai succumbed to his injuries s&me time later. The rescuers of Haria also used lathis in defence and caused in-juries to Chiranji and Tej Ram out of whom Chiranji died on account of his in-juries after sometime. Soon after the occurrence Ganga Sahai went to Hasanpur and after getting a report scribed there by one Baldeo, a petition writer in the Tahsil, lodged it at Police Station Hasanpur, five and a half miles away from the scene of occurrence, at 1.20 p.m. A case on the basis of the report was registered and investigation was taken up. 3. The Station Officer, Mahendra Saxena, reached the scene at about 3 p.m. and there he found that besides Khacheru, Whose death had been reported by Ganga Sahai in the first information report, Gur Sahai and Chiranji had also died in consequence of the injuries sustained by them. Tejpal appellant, who was also injured in the incident, handed over to the Station Officer a report containing a different version of the occurrence and on the basis of that report another case was also registered at the Police Station. After holding inquest on the dead bodies of Khacheru, Gur Sahai and Chiranji the Station Officer des-patched them for postmortem examination. He also got Ram Charan, Nathan, Manori and Tej Ram medically examined. The postmortem report showed: the dead body of Khacheru had a lacerated wound on the top of the head and an abrasion on the back of right fore-arm; the dead body of Gur Sahai had one lacerated wound on the right side of head, one contusion on the chest, one abrasion infront of left leg, two abrasions on upper part of left shoulder blade and one abrasion on the lower part of right buttock; and the dead body of Chiranji had one lacerated wound above left eye-brow, one lacerated wound just behind left ear and one contusion on left side of head above left ear. We do not think it necessary to give further details of the injuries and we need only mention that all the head injuries in the three cases were of a very severe kind and had caused extensive fractures of the head bones. On the medical examination of the other injured persons it was found that Ram Charan had two contused wounds and one punctured wound, Manori had one punctured wound, Nathan had two contused wounds and one contusion, and Tejpal had one incised wound, three contused wounds, one contusion and one abrasion. The injuries make it clear that both the parties employed considerable force and dealt heavy blows with lathis. It is also clear that a pointed weapon which caused punctured wounds to Ram Charan and Manori was used from 'the side of the appellant and some cutting weapon which could cause the incised would to Tej Ram was used from the other side. 4. The counter version of the occurrence as given in the report made by Tej Ram appellant is that Haria and Harnam indulged in some indecent jokes with Shibbi's daughter Harsarupi who had gone to the well for drawing water. Shibbi heard them doing so, and took exception to their conduct and slapped Haria. Haria went home and complained to the people there that he had been beaten by Shibbi. Thereupon Gur Sahai, Khacheru, Manori, Nathan, Gang4 Sahai, Harnam, Ram Charan and some others came up with lathis and boori and attacked Shibbi. Tej Ram, Chiranji and Buddhan then reached there in order to save Shibbi, whereupon Gur Sahai and his companions started beating Tej Ram. On the alarm raised by Tej Ram, arrived Doongar, Shiv Sahai, Chhiddan and many others and then the fight stopped. As a result of his injuries Chiranji died some time afterwards. It is also mentioned in the report that the assailants of Chiranji and Teja were beaten with lathis in defence and they too had sustained injuries. 5. At the trial Doongar, Chuttan, Reti, Chiddan and Shiv Sahai denied their participation in the occurrence and even their presence at the scene of occurrence. Buddhan appellant stated that he watched the fight between the two parties from his house situate at a distance of 10 paces from the well but he could not say who got injured and who died. Buddhan appellant stated that he watched the fight between the two parties from his house situate at a distance of 10 paces from the well but he could not say who got injured and who died. Shibbi appellant only said that he had slapped Haria as Haria and Harnam were having an indecent talk in the presence of his daughter and that he had seen from some distance that Haria and his companions were beaten. Tej Ram's statement at the trial was that as a result of the attack made by Haria and others he got injured and Chiranji died In regard to the injuries caused to the other party he stated that he was not in a position to cause injuries to anybody as he had himself been injured. 6. We may atonce say that the account of the origin of the occurrence as given in the report of Tej Ram or as appearing from the fragmentary statements of some of the appellants is not acceptable. If the fight had started on account of Haria having been slapped by Shibbi and if the helpers and sympathisers of Haria had felt enraged at the conduct of Shibbi it it, inconceivable that no attempt should have been made by them to beat Shibbi. No evidence has been produced in defence and even the learned counsel for the appellants has not seriously pressed before us for consideration the defence version of the origin of the occurrence. The question, however, still remains whether the case put forward by the prosecution is true and whether, on the evidence led in the case, it can be held that the appellants or any of them are guilty. 7. The first thing to be noticed in determining the above questions is that in the first information report made by Ganga Sahai there is no indication whatsoever of the fact that any person in the party of the appellants got injured in the course of the occurrence. Chiranji had received three severe blows on the head and although he died a little afterwards Ganga Sahai must have seen him lying on the ground unconscious and in a precarious condition. Tej Ram too had received injuries which nobody present at the scene could have failed to notice. Yet, there is no mention in the report of the fact that Chiranji and Teja had been injured. Tej Ram too had received injuries which nobody present at the scene could have failed to notice. Yet, there is no mention in the report of the fact that Chiranji and Teja had been injured. In-deed, there is not the faintest suggestion in the report that Ganga Sahai or any other person from his side wielded any weapon in defence. It is true that the maker of a report is really concerned with what he feels aggrieved by i.e. with what the persons reported against have done. It is also true that in giving an account of a fight a person ordinarily feels a reductance or hesitation in disclosing at the stage of making a report that he or men of his party also caused injuries to the assailants, even though it might have been justified by reason of having been done in exercise of the right of private defence. Nevertheless, the absence of a fairly complete account of a fight in the earliest version relating to it is not a matter to be ignored in a case relating to an occurrence in which both the parties received injuries, because the criminality or the justification of an act in such a case would largely depend upon the circumstances in which it was done. We next see that even the story which has been put before the court by the prosecution does not explain the incised wound found on the person of Tej Ram because all those who came to the rescue of Haria are said to have carried only lathis. These features of the case have to be borne in mind in judging the evidence. 8. The eye witnesses examined in the case are Ganga Sahai P. W. 3, Ram Charan P. W. 5, Haria P. W. 6, Manori P. W. 7 and Persadi P. W. 8. The learned trial Judge has not relied upon the testimony of Persadi as he was the scribe of the report dictated by Raj Ram appellant and appeared to be a man of divided loyalties. But apart from this, his evidence does not at all help in determining which party was the aggressor because he says nothing as to the manner of commencement of the fight and states that when he ran up to the well on hearing noise he saw that the parties were exchanging lathi blows. But apart from this, his evidence does not at all help in determining which party was the aggressor because he says nothing as to the manner of commencement of the fight and states that when he ran up to the well on hearing noise he saw that the parties were exchanging lathi blows. The case, therefore, really rests on the testimony of the other four witnesses named above. All these persons were, however, involved in the fight and three of them received injuries. They were all mentioned as accused persons in the report of Tej Ram on the basis of which a cross case was started and, as appears from the statement of the Station Officer, was proceeding in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge who tried this case. That case cannot be considered to have been a mere counterblast, roping in as accused all such persons as were likely to appear as prosecution witnesses. As already noted, among the persons of the other party Chiranji died as a result of three severe blows on the head and Tej Ram received six injuries including an incised wound. On the report made by Tej Ram a case was registered investigated, sent to court, and committed to the court of Session. Evidently, even those who were being prosecuted in that case were involved in a grave charge. They were, therefore, persons who were faced with the necessity of putting the blame on the party of the appellants and of imputing aggression to it, in order to exculpate themselves. The fact that prosecution witnesses are bound to ascribed the aggressive role to the accused persons for meeting a counter charge against them-selves must detract from the value of their testimony. Further, it appears from the statement of Ganga Sahai P. W. 3 that there was a litigation between Gariba, father of Manori P. W. 7, on the one side and Uda, Kana and Jagua on the other. In that litigation Ganga Sahai and his brothers were doing pairvi for Gariba while the appellants were doing pairvi for Uda and others. Further, it appears from the statement of Ganga Sahai P. W. 3 that there was a litigation between Gariba, father of Manori P. W. 7, on the one side and Uda, Kana and Jagua on the other. In that litigation Ganga Sahai and his brothers were doing pairvi for Gariba while the appellants were doing pairvi for Uda and others. It is also in the statement of Ganga Sahai that before the occurrence in question Chhuttan appellant had made a report against Ganga Sahai Ram Charan and Nathan for the theft of a bullock but that report was found to be false and the Police started a case under Section 182, I. P. C. against Chuttan. It is thus clear that the parties were also on inimical terms and they belonged to rival groups. 9. Bearing the above facts in mind let us examine the prosecution story. From the evidence and the circumstances of the case there is no doubt that the fight had its origin in the objection that Shibbi took to Harnam having been asked by Haria to descend into the well for taking out his bucket. It is admitted by the prosecution that there was a grappling between Haria and Shibbi in the course of which Shibbi was thrown down on the ground and thereupon he raised an outcry that he should be saved.. The appellants who reached the well upon hearing that outcry and upon seeing that Shibbi had been actually thrown down on the ground cannot be said to have been unjustified in doing so and the assembly that they formed can: not be said to have been an unlawful assembly till then. It is said by the prosecution that after coming up to the well the appellants started to push Haria down into the well. This part of the prosecution story does not appear to be worthy of belief. If as many as 9 or 10 persons had actually tried to push Haria down into the well they would have succeeded in doing so in no time. Also, if they really wanted to punish Haria for having thrown down Shibbi on the ground it is inconceivable that none of them should have used his weapon against him. We, therefore, think that until the arrival of the other party the only object of the appellants was to see that Shibbi was saved and released. Also, if they really wanted to punish Haria for having thrown down Shibbi on the ground it is inconceivable that none of them should have used his weapon against him. We, therefore, think that until the arrival of the other party the only object of the appellants was to see that Shibbi was saved and released. What seems to have happened is that shortly after the arrival of the appellants' party the other party consisting of Ganga Sahai and others also reached there armed and then there was a fight between the two parties. Which party acted as the aggressor cannot, however, be determined and remains involved in serious doubt. The story that the appellants attempted to push Haria down into the well was, in our opinion, introduced only to assign the aggressive part in the fight to the appellants and it must be rejected as untrue. That being so, the statement of the prosecution witnesses that the appellants started the attack on them cannot be relied upon. It is quite likely that the party of Ganga Sahai and others rushed to attack the party of the appellants and actually attacked it first. 10. After carefully considering the entire evidence and the circumstances of the case we entertain grave doubt about the fact that the appellants acted as aggressors and we think it quite probable that they might have acted in exercise of the right of private defence. The case against the appellants has not been established beyond reasonable doubt and they are entitled to acquittal. 11. In the result the appeal is allowed, the convictions and the sentences of the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted. They are on bail; they need not surrender to their bails and their bail bonds are discharged.