JUDGMENT 1. - This is a State appeal under Sec. 417. Cr P.C. (1898) against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 1/73 acquitting the accused-respondents of the charges-under Set 307/149, 326/149, 324 and 323, IPC. 2. On 16-9-71. i.e , on Thursday, PW 1 Devlal and PW 2 Kalu. both-sons of Harlal of village Hanolia, Tehsil Aklera, District Jhalawar, were going to their fields at about 10-11 A M. through a Pagdandir (way) which passes through the fields of Mansing and Banshi. When they had crossed the field of Mansingh and were in the field of Banshi. it is alleged that the six accused-respondents (1) Ratna, (2) Lalji. (3) Mansingh, (4) Bapu, (5) Sardariya and (6) Mathura, came armed with weapons and asked them as to why they were passing through that way. Kalu (PW 2) was ahead of Devlal, and the accused persons are alleged to have first beaten Devlal (PW 1) and when Kalu-intervened be too was beaten by the accused Accused Mathura was armed with a sword, accused Dardariya with a pharsi, accused Lalji and Mansingh with Laundi (lathi) having iron wires at the top), and the others also with lathis. Accused Mathura struck sword blows to Devlal and Kalu, accused Sardariya gave blows with his pharsi and the other accused with their respective weapons. A report (Ex. P. 5) of the incident was lodged by Kalu in P.S. Mainhar Thana on 17-9-71 at 4 P M . A case was registered and the injuries of both the injured were examined by Dr. Govind Singh, whose statement was recorded in the committing court as PW I, and has been transferred to the sessions file u/s 509. Cr. P.C (1898) and marked Ex. P. 7. Dr. Singh on examining Devlal and Kalu found the following injuries. Kalu:- 1. Incised wound 2"x 1/4"x 1/2" horizontally on the right side of the head near the fore head. The bone was also cut at the wound site, vertically. 2. Incised wound 21/2 "x ⅙"x 1/4" on the head, in centre. 3. Contused wound 21/2 "x 1/4"x 1/4" on the posterior side of the head. 4. Incised wound 11/2 "x ⅙ x 1/4" horizontally-at the middle of the pinna of right ear cutting it in two-flaps. 5. Incised wound l1/2 "x 1/4"x 1/4'' vertically on the lower part of the outer side of left fore-arm. 3. Contused wound 21/2 "x 1/4"x 1/4" on the posterior side of the head. 4. Incised wound 11/2 "x ⅙ x 1/4" horizontally-at the middle of the pinna of right ear cutting it in two-flaps. 5. Incised wound l1/2 "x 1/4"x 1/4'' vertically on the lower part of the outer side of left fore-arm. 6. Incised wound l"x ⅙"x ⅙" obliquely on the left temporal region on face. 7. Contusion 6"x l" vertically on the upper part of right side of back. 8. Contusion 5"x l" obliquely on the left of back, tipper part. 9. Contusion 6"x 1" vertically on the lower part of back, left side. 10. Contusion G"x l" obliquely of the lower part of right side back. Injuries Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 were caused by sharp weapon and the others by blund weapon. Injury No. 1 was grievous and the others were simple, received within 48 to 60 hours of tire examination, and are entered in Ex. P. 1. Deva:- 1. Incised wound 5"x 1/2"x 1/4" obliquely on the palm of right hand, right from index finger to the other side of palm. 2. Incised wound l "x 1/4"x ⅙th on the dorsem of right hand at the root of right thumb. 3. Incised wound l"x ⅙"x ⅙" at lower part of inner side of left thumb. 4. Incised wound 1/4"x 1/4"x ⅙" at the medial dorsal surface of middle finger. 5 Incised wound 1/2''x 1/4"x ⅙" at the upper part of the palm, side of left thumb. 6. Incised wound 4"x l1/2 "x l" obliquely on the postero lateral inner side of left leg about 4" above the medial melleolus. 7. Incised wound 2"x l",x l" about 1/2" below injury No. 6 parallel to it posteriorly and outwardly. All the injuries were simple and received by sharp weapon within 48 to 60 hours of the examination and are entered in Ex P. 2. 3. The accused were arrested and a report u/s 173, Cr. P.C. was filed against them in the court of the learned Magistrate, who committed them to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. Charges u ss 307/148, 326/149 and 323, IPC were read over and explained to the accused persons who did not plead quite to the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. On behalf of the prosecution, 5 witnesses were examined and the statement of Dr. Charges u ss 307/148, 326/149 and 323, IPC were read over and explained to the accused persons who did not plead quite to the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. On behalf of the prosecution, 5 witnesses were examined and the statement of Dr. Gavindsingh recorded in the committing court was tendered into evidence and was marked as Ex. P. 7. Thereafter, the accused-respondents were examined u/s 342, Cr. P.C. (1890) to explain to evidence appearing against them in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The accused-respondents stand on a bare plea of denial and did not examine any witnesses in defence. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused-respondents of the charges levelled against them. 6. We have heard the learned P.P. and the learned Advocate for the accused-respondents and have been taken through the evidence on record. The submission of the learned P.P. is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has disbelieved the two injured persons solely on the ground that both had become unconscious, and, therefore, they could not see as to which of the accused persons had given beating to them. According to him, this approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not correct. It is further submitted that both the injured persons received injuries and there is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Merely because the other witnesses have not been examined, their evidence cannot be disbelieved, and if their evidence is scrutinised, it can easily be said that the accused-respondents gave beating to them. The learned Advocate for the accused persons, on the other hand, contends that, though there is much to be desired in the judgment of the trial court, but there is delay of about 30 hours in loading the F.I.R which has not been explained and the independent witnesses have not been examined. Not only this, the prosecution witnesses have not explained the injuries of accused Ratna alias Ramratan son of Manising and, therefore, the case of the prosecution is rendered doubtful. Not only this, the prosecution witnesses have not explained the injuries of accused Ratna alias Ramratan son of Manising and, therefore, the case of the prosecution is rendered doubtful. It is further submitted that the injuries were received in the same occurrence, and though the accused persons have not pleaded right of private defence of body, but from the circumstances of this case, a case of right of private defence is also made out, and, therefore, it is not such a case in which this Court should interfere in the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 7. The case of the prosecution rests on the statements of two injured persons, Kalu (PW 1) and Deva (PW 2). as well as on the statement (Ex.P 7) of Dr. Govind Singh. A look at the judgement of the trial court will show that the main ground why no reliance has been placed on the statements of these two witnesses is that both of them had become unconscious and. therefore, they cannot say as to which of the accused persons inflicted injuries to them. In the words of the learned trial Court: " nksuksa xokgku ds c;ku ls ;g Hkh ik;k tkrk gS fd nksuksa eFkqjk ds }kjk pksVsa yxrs gh csgks'k gks x;s Fks rks fQj nwljs eqyfteku }kjk pksVsa yxus dk mudks dSls ekywe iM+kA ;g Hkh lkfcr gksuk ugha ik;k tkrk gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g dguk mfpr gSa fd eq>s nksuksa xokgku ds c;ku dh lPpkbZ ij 'kd gSA " To our mind, this approach of the learned trial Court is not correct. Dr. Singh, in his statement Ex.P. 7, has clearly stated that all the injuries of both the injured persons individually and collectively were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. A look at the injuries will show that they do not appear to be of such a nature that the injured persons became unconscious. Both the witnesses are villagers and illiterate persons, and. therefore, merely because they have stated that they had become unconscious, in the facts and circumstances of this case, and more so looking to the nature of injuries, it cannot be said that by becoming unconscious they meant that they had lost all senses. Both the witnesses are villagers and illiterate persons, and. therefore, merely because they have stated that they had become unconscious, in the facts and circumstances of this case, and more so looking to the nature of injuries, it cannot be said that by becoming unconscious they meant that they had lost all senses. Besides this, so far as the injuries of Deva (PW 2) are concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that he was beaten by the accused persons earlier than Kalu and Kalu had witnessed the occurrence, and thereafter when he intervened be too was beaten. Therefore, even if assuming that after having received blows at the hands of Mathura accused, Deva (PW 1) might have become unconscious, Kalu (PW 2) could still see as to who were the accused persons who gave beating to him. Therefore, we are of the opinion that on this ground alone the evidence of these two witnesses could not be disbelieved and we shall presently show that so far as some accused persons are concerned, their statements are corroborated by the medical evidence. 8. No doubt, in the F.I.R., there is mention of some witnesses who have not been examined by the prosecution. A look at Ex. P. 3 (FIE) will show that the names of Dhulilal and Harlal are mentioned therein as the eye witnesses of the occurrence. Harlal is none else but father of Deva (PW 1) and Kalu (PW 2). Deva (PW 1) was carrying food for Harlal, his father, when he and Kalu were beaten in the field of Banshi. It has come in the statement of Kalu (PW 2) that Harlal, his father, his died. Therefore, Harlal could not have been examined by the prosecution. Dhulfial is also uncle of the injured persons as had been stated by Deva (PW 1). Therefore, merely because those named in the F.I.R. have not been examined, the statements of the injured persons Kalu and Devlal cannot be disbelieved and we will scrutinise their statements closely and with caution. 9. Kalu (PW 2) has stated that the accused persons wanted to take possession of their land (Beed), which was near their houses and that is why the occurrence look place. 9. Kalu (PW 2) has stated that the accused persons wanted to take possession of their land (Beed), which was near their houses and that is why the occurrence look place. Kalu (PW 2) was ahead of Devlal, and he had almost crossed the Pagdandi (way) through the fields of Mansingh and Banshi, and Devlal was in the field of Banshi, when it is alleged that first of all accused Mathura came armed with a sword. It has been stated by Kalu (PW 2) that when Deva was passing through the (Beed) field, Mathura aimed a blow on the stomach of Devlal, but Devlal caught hold of the sword wit-h his hands and received injuries on his hands. The other blow by sward was also taken by Devlal on his hand, as a result of which his palm was cut. He has, no doubt, stated that Sardariya also gave a blow by pharsi on the heels of Devlal and other accused also caused injuries to him, but this part of his statement is not corroborated by medical evidence. Dr. Singh, on examining Devlal, only found 7 incised wounds, all by sharp weapon, and, therefore, the participation of accused persons who were not armed with sharp weapons has to be excluded A look at 7 injuries of Devlal will show that injuries 1 to 5 are on the fingers and palm and thumb, which were possibly received, when, as per the statement of Kalu (PW 2). and Devlal. Devlal in order to ward off the sword blows caught the sword of Mathura with his hands It is also there that Mathura also inflicted sword blow on the leg of Devlal. It has been stated by Devlal (PW 1) that after receiving blows at the hands of Mathura, he fell down and he cannot say as to who thereafter caused injuries to him. Besides this, it is also stated by him that a blow by sword was given on his leg by accused Mathura. There is no injury on the heels of Devlal. and, therefore, so far as the participation of Mathura accused is concerned, it will not be safe to rely on his statement. But, from the statements of Kalu (PW 2) and Devlal (PW 1), it can clearly be said that Mathura accused (6) caused injuries to Devlal with a sword. There is no injury on the heels of Devlal. and, therefore, so far as the participation of Mathura accused is concerned, it will not be safe to rely on his statement. But, from the statements of Kalu (PW 2) and Devlal (PW 1), it can clearly be said that Mathura accused (6) caused injuries to Devlal with a sword. Ail the injuries of Devlal are simple and caused by sharp weapon, and we have already said above that Dr. Singh has clearly stated that none of the injuries individually or collectively were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The learned trial Court has also observed that Kalu could not have witnessed the occurrence from a distance of 40 Yds., but Kalu was in the same field. There was no obstruction. 40 Yds. is only an estimate of the distance, and looking to the fact that he also received injuries in the same occurrence, his presence at the time of occurrence can hardly be disputed. Therefore, on this ground also, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not right when he disbelieved the statement of Kalu. From the statement of Devlal and Kalu, therefore, it can be said that so far as the injuries to Devlal are concerned, it was Mathura who caused all the injuries to him, and the participation of all other accused is not proved. 10. The applicability of Section 149 or of Section 34, I.P.C., in the facts and circumstances of this case, is ruled out. It has come in the statement of Devlal (PW 1) that first of all Mathura accused came armed with a sword and inflicted injuries to him. Thereafter, accused Ratna came from the side of his house, and then Sardariya and others came. The houses of the accused persons are nearby the place of occurrence, and looking to the fact that they came one by one, as we have observed above that only participation of Mathura accused so far as the injuries to Devlal is concerned is proved, it cannot be said that the beating was administered in the prosecution of the common object or in furtherance of the common intention of some of the accused persons. The accused persons can. therefore, be held responsible for their individual acts. The accused persons can. therefore, be held responsible for their individual acts. We have hold above that only Mathura caused simple injuries to Devlal, and, therefore, Mathura alone can be held responsible under Section 324, IPC for having voluntarily caused simple injuries by sharp weapon to Devlal (PW 1). 11. Now. it is to be seen as to which of the accused persons actually participated in the beating to Kalu (PW 2). It has been stated by Devlal (PW 1) that Mathura accused gave sword blows above the ear and on the head of Kalu. We have already said above that merely because the witnesses have stated that they became unconscious, looking to the injuries and the statement.of the doctor it cannot be said that they mean that they lost all senses and could not have seen the occurrence. Devlal does not state that any other accused person caused injuries to Kalu. Kalu (PW 2) has, no doubt, stated that Sardariya also gave a blow to h'.m with pharsi. According to him, Ratna gave a lathi blow on his right hand, but a look at the injury report (Ex P. 1 marked in the committing court) will show that there is no injury on his hand. Therefore, from the statement of Kalu, all that can be said is that only accused Mathura and Sardariya caused injuries to him, and it cannot be said as to who else from amongst the accused persons caused such injuries to him, which were received by blunt weapon. Therefore, from the statement of witnesses, so far as the beating to Kalu (PW 2) is concerned, participation of accused Mathura and Sardariya is also proved Dr. Singh, in his statement (Ex P. 7) has stated that injury No. 1 was not a fracture, but it comes under the category of a cut fracture, because the bone was cut. This injury is on the right side of the head near the fore-head. It has been stated by Kalu (PW 2) that a pharsi blow as well as a blow by sword was given on his head. It cannot, therefore, be said that who from amongst Mathuru and Sardariya caused the grievous injury to Kalu (PW 2) by sharp weapon. We have already said above that the applicability of either Section 149 or 34, I.P.C. is ruled out in this case on the evidence on record. It cannot, therefore, be said that who from amongst Mathuru and Sardariya caused the grievous injury to Kalu (PW 2) by sharp weapon. We have already said above that the applicability of either Section 149 or 34, I.P.C. is ruled out in this case on the evidence on record. Therefore, accused Mathura and Sardariya can only be held responsible under Section 324, IPC for having coluntarily caused simple injuries by sharp weapon to Kalu (PW 2). 12. We have already said above, that merely because the other witnesses have not been examined, the evidence of the entire witnesses cannot be disbelieved and only needs to be examined with caution. After having scrutinised their evidence, we are of the opinion that there is no reason as to why their statements should not be relied upon, so fer as accused Mathura and Sardariya are concerned But, the participation of other accused persons is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trill court did not examine and scrutinies the evidence in a manner which required his attention and he was simply governed by the fact that the witnesses stated that they become unconscious, and, therefore, cannot be relied upon. Besides this, even the trial court has observed that Devlal become unconscious after receiving injuries at the hands of Mathura, and even then he disbelieved (he statement if Devlal The evidence of the injured persons is corroborated by the medical evidence, and, therefore, we are of the opinion that the two accused Mathura and Sardariya are responsible under Section 324, IPC. 13. No doubt, there is delay in lodging the FIR (Ex P. 3) in PS. Manohar Thana. A look at Ex P. 3 will show that it is mentioned therein that Kalu had first gone to lodge the report at police our post Kolu Kheri, but the head constable was not there and he was directed to get to the police station to lodge the report. It has also come in the statement of Kalu (PW 2) that he had gone to police out-post Kolu Kheri to lodge the report, but none was available there and he went to lodge the report at the police station. Not a single question was put to him in cross-examination to show that his statement is not correct. Both the injured persons, Kalu and Deva, received injuries. Not a single question was put to him in cross-examination to show that his statement is not correct. Both the injured persons, Kalu and Deva, received injuries. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence, as given in Ex. P. 3, is 10 miles We are, therefore, of the opinion that the delay is explained No doubt, there was previous enmity, but this is a double edged weapon. It may be the reason for over implication, but, merely because the witnesses are not relied upon for some of the accused, their evidence, if reliable for some others, can be relied upon. The maxim falsus in unofalsus in omnibus is not applicable in our country. Therefore the delay has been reasonably explained in this case, and so far as the two accused persons are concerned, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the case against them. 14. A look at the statement of Ratna accused under Section 342, Cr. P.C. (1898) will show that he has not taken a plea of right of private defence of person under law, if the place is not taken, and the same arises from the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused is entitled to the plea of private defence of his person or property. In this case, besides the fact that Ratna also received injuries which have not been explained, there are, no doubt, no circumstances either in cross-examination of the witnesses, or in the statements of the accused, which make out a case for the exercise of right of private defence of person of Ratna. A look at the injuries of Ratna, contained in Ex. D. 1, will show that he had 5 injuries, 3 incised wounds on the right eye brow, at the upper lip and on the dorsal of surface of the hand at the root of left thumb. Injury No. 3, confused wound at the gum of lower right incisor tooth, was grievous. It has been admitted by Kalu (PW 2) that Ratna received injuries in the same occurrence, and a case is pending against them in the court of the learned Magistrate. It can, therefore, be said that accused Ratna received injuries in the same occurrence. The murder of injuries in 5, three of them are incised wounds and one injury No. 3 is a grievous injury. It can, therefore, be said that accused Ratna received injuries in the same occurrence. The murder of injuries in 5, three of them are incised wounds and one injury No. 3 is a grievous injury. It is the duty of the prosecution to explain the injuries of the accused persons, if the same are received in the occurrence. In State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima, AIR 1975 SC 1478 , it has been held as to which of the three consequences follow, if the injuries of the accused are not explained by the prosecution. The learned P.P. has placed reliance on Baba Nanda Sharma v. State of Assam, 1977 CAR 360. and submits that as per this authority of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the prosecution is not obliged to explain the injuries on the person of accused in all cases and in all circumstances. A look at Baba Nandas case (supra) will show that it was doubtful if the injuries of the accused were excited in the same occurrence. There was no counter information by the accused party in the police, nor there was any counter case filed. It was in those circumstances that the observations were made that the prosecution is not obliged to explain the injuries on the person of the accused in all cases and in all circumstances. It has also been observed in the same ruling that it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether the prosecution case becomes reasonably doubtful for its failure to explain the injuries on the accused. Therefore, that authority will not apply. 15. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the field of Banshi and the fields of Mansingh and his sons and their houses are nearly. The S.H.O. was not examined in this case, but there is a site plan on the record which is a prosecution exhibit, and from its perusal it appears that grass Beed of Mansingh is very near the place of occurrence. The two witnesses Devlal and Kalu have not explained the injuries of accused Ratna, which he received in the same occurrence, and which are 5 in number. Therefore, the true genesis of the occurrence does not appear to have been stated by the prosecution witnesses. The two witnesses Devlal and Kalu have not explained the injuries of accused Ratna, which he received in the same occurrence, and which are 5 in number. Therefore, the true genesis of the occurrence does not appear to have been stated by the prosecution witnesses. The case of the accused persons, therefore, falls under the second category of Bai Fatimias case (supra), and it can be said that it makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful, and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, it is an appeal against acquittal, and so much discussion of the evidence and other matters has been only necessary, because the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not turned out a proper judgment. He has not even discussed nor mentioned the injuries of accused Ratna and other circumstances, which have been discussed by us. Therefore, though, we do not agree with the reasoning or the trial court, but for the reasons stated above, we do net think that it is a fit case in which we should interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 16. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******