B. N. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THE State of D. P. bas filed this appeal against the acquittal of Vir Sahai Singh, Chhabi Nath Singh, Raj Bahadur Singh and Phulwar Singh under Sections 302/34, 307 and 307/34 Indian Penal Code by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit by his judgment dated 1. 10. 1975 passed in Sessions Trial No. A-38 of 1975. ( 2 ) VIR Sahai Singh, Chhabinath Singh, Raj Bahadur Singh and Phulwar Singh respondents are the sons of Tursam Singh. All the respondents are residents of Village Ruria Churia. Girish Kumar (P. W. 4) is the son of Parmeshwari Dayal (P. W. 3) and Shiv Kumar deceased was also a son of Parmeshwari Dayal. All of them also resident in village Ruria Churia. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 2. 11. 1974 at about 9 A. M. Vir Sahai Singh respondent caught the bullocks of Shiv Kumar deceased while they are going through his field and took them to his house. At about 1. 30 P. M. on the same day the buffalos of Raj Bahadur Singh appellant entered the paddy field of Parmeshwari Dayal (P. W. 3) and damaged the crop. Parmeshwari Dayal (P. W. 3) and his sons Girish Kumar (P. W. 4) and Shiv Kumar deceased caught the buffalos and while they were taking them to the cattle-pound at Bilasanda and had reached the canal culvert to the north of village Ruria Churia, Jagvir Singh (P. W. 1), Sunder Lal (P. W. 2) and Jagtar Singh met them and told them that they should not take the buffalos to the cattle-pound and they would get the matter compounded. In the meantime all the four respondents came there. Phulwar Singh respondent was armed with a Lathi while the remaining respondents were armed with guns. Chhabinath Singh respondent pointed his gun towards Parmeshwari Dayal (P. W. 3) and his sons and threatened to shoot them. Sunder Lal (P. W. 2) and Jagvir Singh (P. W. 1) then caught the gun and told Chabbi Nath Singh respondent not to shoot but the gun was fired as a result of which gunshot injuries were caused to Vir Sahai Singh and Phulwar Singh respondents who were standing near Chhabinath Singh respondent. Sunder Lal (P. W. 2) and Jagvir Singh (P. W. 1) then caught the gun and told Chabbi Nath Singh respondent not to shoot but the gun was fired as a result of which gunshot injuries were caused to Vir Sahai Singh and Phulwar Singh respondents who were standing near Chhabinath Singh respondent. Vir Sahai Singh respondent then fired his gun causing injuries to Girish Kumar (P. W. 4) and Chhabi nath Singh respondent fired his gun causing injuries to Shiv Kumar deceased. All the three respondents who were armed with guns thereafter fired several shots at Shiv Kumar deceased which resulted in his death on the spot. The respondents then went away. ( 4 ) THE first information report was lodged by Parmeshwari Dayal (P. W. 3) at Police Station Bilsanda at 4 P. M. on the same day (2. 11. 1974) the distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence being three miles. ( 5 ) THE injuries of Girish Kumar (P. W. 4) were examined by Dr. R. S. Sharma (P. W. 6) on 2. 11. 1974 at 8. 45 P. M. and the undermentioned injuries were found on his person: 1. Gun shot wound of entry 10 cm. x 5 cm. x whole thickness front and outer-side of the lower part of left upper arm 3 cm. above the elbow. The margins were inverted and lacerated. Bleeding present. Charring of skin and singing present. 2. Exit wound of injury No. 1, 11. 5 cm. X 6 cm. whole thickness back of the left upper arm 4 cm. above the elbow. The margins everted and lacerated. ( 6 ) THE postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. T. S. Talwar (P. W. 5) on 4. 11. 1974 at 8. 30 P. M. and the under mentioned ante mortem injuries were found on the body of Shiv Kumar: 1. Lacerated wound 2. 5 cm. X 1 cm. x bone on the right forehead upper part. 2. Lacerated wound 5 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep parallel to and just above right eye brow with fracture of bone underneath. 3. Lacerated wound 1 cm. X 1/2 cm. on close to right side nose. 4. Lacerated wound 11/2 cm. X 1 cm. X bone deep on the right cheek with fracture of cheek bone underneath. 5. Abrasion 1. 5 cm. X 1 cm. x bone deep parallel to and just above right eye brow with fracture of bone underneath. 3. Lacerated wound 1 cm. X 1/2 cm. on close to right side nose. 4. Lacerated wound 11/2 cm. X 1 cm. X bone deep on the right cheek with fracture of cheek bone underneath. 5. Abrasion 1. 5 cm. X 1 cm. on the left side of chin. 6. Gun shot wound 1 cm. X 1 cm. X bone deep with lacerated and inverted margins on the outer side of left arm lower part, wound of entry, fracture of humerous bone, sin all pieces of bone. Gun shot wound of exist 75 cm. x. 75 cm. on the inner side of left elbow everted margin connecting with injury No. 6. Abrasion 5 cm. X 1 cm. upper part of right side chest. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm. x 1 cm. x chest cavity margin on the left side chest 6 cm. from left nipple at 5 Oclock position. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm. x 1 cm. x abdomen cavity deep inverted margins left abdomen upper part 14 cm. down from left nipple. Abrasion 11/2 cm. x 5 cm. left side abdomen 7 cm. down from injury No. 10. Abrasion 1 cm. x 5 cm. left side chest 5 cm. from left nipple at 3 Oclock position. ( 7 ) ON internal examination fracture of frontal bone, right cheek bone and sixth rib was found. Both the lungs were punctured. The heart was found to be lacerated and the peritoneum and the stomach were found to be perferated. ( 8 ) IN the opinion of Dr. Talwar (P. W. 5) the injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ( 9 ) THE prosecution examined four eye witnesses namely, Jagvir Singh (P. W. 1), Sunder Lal (P. W. 2), Parmeshwari Dayal (P. W. 3), and Girish Kumar (P. W. 4 ). ( 10 ) ALL the respondents pleaded not guilty. Raj Bahadur Singh respondent denied his presence at the time of the incident. The remaining three respondents set up a counter version of the incident. According to their version the bullocks of Parmeshwari Dayal (P. W. 3) had damaged the crop of Vir Sahai Singh respondent on the day of occurrence at about 1. Raj Bahadur Singh respondent denied his presence at the time of the incident. The remaining three respondents set up a counter version of the incident. According to their version the bullocks of Parmeshwari Dayal (P. W. 3) had damaged the crop of Vir Sahai Singh respondent on the day of occurrence at about 1. 30 P. M. While Vir Sahai Singh. Pulawar Singh and Chhabinath Singh respondents were taking the bullocks to the cattle-pound and reached the culvert of the canal in village Ruria Churia, Parmeshwari Dayal (P. W. 3), Girish Kumar (P. W. 4) and Shiv Kumar deceased came there. Parmeshwari Dayal (P. W. 3) and Shiv Kumar deceased fired their pistols causing injuries to Vir Sahai Singh and Phulawar Singh respondents, Chhabinath Singh respondent then fired his gun in self-defence causing injuries to Shiv Kumar deceased and Girish Kumar (P. W. 4 ). The bullocks of Parmeshwari Dayal (P. W. 3) were thereafter taken to the Police Station Bilasanda where the report regarding the incident was lodged by Phulwar Singh at 3. 30 P. M. on the same day (2. 11. 1974 ). ( 11 ) DR. R. W. D. Dwivedi (C. W. 1) examined the injuries of Vir Sahai Singh and Phulwar Singh respondents on 2. 11. 1974 at 4 P. M. and 4. 30 P. M. and the under mentioned injuries were found on their person: Vir Sahai Singh 1. Gun shot wounds of entry 3 cm. X 3 cm. on the right and outer part of outer side of right thigh 8 cm. above the knee. 2. Gun shot wound of exist 8 cm. X 5 cm. on the back of inner aspect of the right thigh 2 cm. above the right, knee communicating with injury No. 1. 3. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm. X 1 cm. x 1 cm. on the back of inner aspect of the left knee. 4. Abrasion 2-1/2 cm. X 1/2 cm. on the left leg back 2 cm. below the knee. Phuiwar Singh 1. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm. X 1 cm. x 1 cm. on the front of the ankle left side middle part. No bleeding tattooing and charring seen. 12. The witnesses were examined in defence, namely, Sukhai (D. W. 1) and Chhabi Nath (D. W. 2 ). below the knee. Phuiwar Singh 1. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm. X 1 cm. x 1 cm. on the front of the ankle left side middle part. No bleeding tattooing and charring seen. 12. The witnesses were examined in defence, namely, Sukhai (D. W. 1) and Chhabi Nath (D. W. 2 ). ( 12 ) THE trial court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the respondents and acquitted them as mentioned earlier. ( 13 ) JAGVIR Singh (P. W. 1), Sunder Lal (P. W. 2), Parmeshwari Dayal (P. W. 3) and Girish Kumar (P. W. 4) supported the prosecution case regarding the incident. The explanation offered by them regarding the injuries received by Vir Sahai Singh and Phulwar Singh respondents cannot, however, be accepted as it is difficult to believe that Jagvir Singh and Sunder Lal would have caught the gun of Chhabinath Singh respondent when he was aiming it at Parmeshwari Dayal (P. W. 3) and his sons and the gun would have gone off accidentally as it appears to be highly improbable and unnatural. Further the evidence of the Investigating Officer Shyam Pal Singh (P. W. 11) shows that when he reached the place of occurrence at about 5. 30 P. M. on the same day (2. 11. 1974) in the course of investigation he found one country made pistol containing a discharged cartridge lying near the body of Shiv Kumar deceased and he found one live cartridge in the pant pocket of the deceased which supports the defence version that Parmeshwari Dayal (P. W. 3) and Shiv Kumar deceased fired at the respondents Vir Sahai Singh and Phulwar Singh at the, time of the incident. It is also significant to note that the report of the incident lodged by Phulwar Singh at 3. 30 P. M. was earlier than the report of Parmeshwari Dayal (P. W. 3 ). Moreover, two bullocks of Parmeshwari Dayal (P. W. 3) were also taken to the Police Station by Phulwar Singh respondent when he lodged the report which supports the defence version of the incident. Parmeshwari Dayal (P. W. 3) and Girish Kumar (P. W. 4) are highly partisan witnesses as they are close relations of Shiv Kumar deceased. Moreover, two bullocks of Parmeshwari Dayal (P. W. 3) were also taken to the Police Station by Phulwar Singh respondent when he lodged the report which supports the defence version of the incident. Parmeshwari Dayal (P. W. 3) and Girish Kumar (P. W. 4) are highly partisan witnesses as they are close relations of Shiv Kumar deceased. Jagvir Singh (P. W. 1) and Sunder Lal (P. W. 2) are also not in dependent as it was admitted by Jagvir Singh that he had sent an application to the Superintendent of Police against Chhabinath Singh respondent on 14. 9. 1974. It was also admitted by him that Chhabinath Singh respondent had come to his house and threatened to kill him prior to the occurrence. It was also admitted by him that he had come to know that Chhabinath Singh respondent wanted to kill him and was telling his brothers to collect Rs. 5000/- each for the said purpose and he had moved an application before the Superintendent of Police Pilibhit apprehending danger from him. It was admitted by Sunder Lal (P. W. 2) that he contested the election of Sabhapati of the Gram Sabha against Ram Lal and Shiv Kumar deceased was his agent while the respondents were workers of Ram Lal. There were two parties in the village one belonging to him arid the other to Ram Lal. He also stood surety for Shiv Kumar deceased in a theft case. ( 14 ) THE result, therefore, is that the version of the incident given by the eye witnesses cannot be relied upon and the possibility of the respondents having acted in the right of private defence cannot be excluded. ( 15 ) THE respondents were thus rightly acquitted by the trial court under Sections 302/34, 307 and 307/34 Indian Penal Code. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. ( 16 ) THE respondents are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. Appeal dismissed accordingly. .