S. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of Criminal Appeals Nos. 320 and 321 of 1979 also. ( 2 ) THE incident that took place in village Joulkhera of Betul district on the night of 18-4-1978 resulted in the death of Yuvraj Pawar and serious injuries to Sahablal Pawar (P. W. 1) and Baboolal Pawar (P. W. 16 ). In Sessions Trial No. 41 of 1978, accused-appellant Brijesh Kumar Trivedi alias Rajoo was prosecuted by the Sessions Judge, Betul, under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of Yuvraj Pawar and accused-appellants Pramod Kumar Trivedi, Shriram and Tiran were prosecuted under section 302/34 or alternatively under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the said murder. Similarly, in Sessions Trials Nos. 42 and 43 of 1978, accused appellant Brijesh Kumar was prosecuted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to murder Sahablal Pawar and Baboolal Pawar respectively and the remaining three accused-appellants were prosecuted under section 307/34 or alternatively under section 307/109 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the said acts. The three sessions trials were tried together and disposed of by the Sessions Judge by one consolidated judgment dated 26-2-1979. Accused-appellant Brijesh Kumar Trivedi was held guilty of having committed the murder of Yuvraj Pawar and attempting to murder Sahablal Pawar and Baboolal Pawar and was accordingly sentenced under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to imprisonment for life and under section 307 to rigorous imprisonment for three years on two counts. Accused-appellants Pramod Kumar Trivedi, Shriram and Tiran were held not guilty under section 302/34 or section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the Murder of Yuvraj Pawar. They went also not held guilty under section 307/34 or section 307/109 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with attempting to murder Baboolal Pawar. However, they were held guilty under section 307/109 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with attempt to murder Sahablal Pawar and were each sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 1979 is by accused-appellant Brijesh Kumar against his conviction and sentence under section 302, of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the murder of Yuvraj Pawar. Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 1979 is by accused-appellant Brijesh Kumar against his conviction and sentence under section 302, of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the murder of Yuvraj Pawar. Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 1979 is also by accused-appellant Brijesh Kumar against his conviction and sentence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with attempt to murder Baboolal Pawar. The present appeal i. e. Criminal Appeal No. 262 of 1979 by all the four accused-appellants is in connection with attempt to murder Sahablal Pawar by accused-appellant Brijesh Kumar against his conviction and sentence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and by the remaining accused-appellants against their conviction and sentence under section 307/109 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) ACCUSED-APPELLANTS Brijesh Kumar and Pramod Kumar were brothers. All the four accused-appellants were residents of village Joulkhera. Deceased Yuvraj Pawar and injured Sahablal Pawar (P. W. 1) were also residents of village Joulkhera. Injured Baboolal Pawar (P. W. 16) was a resident of village Neergud and Mishrilal Pawar (P. W. 17) was his brother. ( 4 ) NOW, the case of the prosecution against the accused-appellants, as per the evidence produced in the case, has to be understood in the background of two sets of events that were said to have taken place on the night of 18-4-1978. ( 5 ) THE first set of events, according to the prosecution case, began when Baboolal Pawar (P. W. 16) and his brother Mishrilal Pawar (P. W. 17), while carrying one and half bags of sugar in their bullock-cart for the purpose of distribution and sale to another neighbouring village Sukha Khedi were met at the junction of road to village Joulkhera and Sukha Kheri by the four accused-appellants. It was alleged that the accused-appellants forced Baboolal Pawar and Mishrilal Pawar to divert their bullock-cart to village Joulkhera and accompany them to the said village. At village Joulkhera, they took the two persons and their bullock-cart to the house of Patel Gajrajsingh (P. W. 2 ). ( 6 ) AN idea about the location of the house of patel Gajrajsingh (P. W. 2) could be had from maps Exs. P-23 and P-24 prepared by the police during the course of investigation and proved by witness Sajjanlal (P. W. 14 ). ( 6 ) AN idea about the location of the house of patel Gajrajsingh (P. W. 2) could be had from maps Exs. P-23 and P-24 prepared by the police during the course of investigation and proved by witness Sajjanlal (P. W. 14 ). Adjacent to the house of Patel Gajrajsingh on the western said was the house of accused-appellant Tarans father Darbarsingh (P. W. 4 ). There was a public road running east-west in frong and to the south of the said two houses. On the eastern side of the public road, a lane branched off from the same towards north. To the further east, by the side of the said lane, was the house of Sahablal Pawar (P. W. 1 ). In the said house Sahablal Pawar kept his Kirana and cloth shop also. The house of Yuvraj Pawar was not shown in the said maps. However, as per the evidence produced in the case it was said to be situated to the northeast to the house of Sahablal Pawar. ( 7 ) THE second set of events began more or less at the same time in the Khaliyan of one Sahablal Badhai (not to be confused with Sahablal pawar) situated at some distance from the Basti. This Sahablal, Badhai had taken a thresher belonging to Sahablal Pawar (P. W. 1) on hire on that day. Mehangya (P. W. 21) servant of Sahablal Pawar, had taken the said thresher to the Khaliyan of Sahablal Badhai and was operating the same in the said Khaliyan. It was stated that the four accused- appellants reached the said khaliyan and accused-appellant Pramod Kumar removed the oil tube from the engine of the thresher with the result that the engine stopped. Accused-appellant Pramod Kumar told Mehangya that as Sahablal Pawar had not done udaoni of his crop, his thresher would not be permitted to operate at any other place. The said accused- appellant asked Mehangya to go and bring his master Sahablal Pawar there. On this, Mehangya went to the house of Sahablal Pawar, woke him up and informed him as to what had happened. Sahablal Pawar told him that he would meet the accused-appellant on the next day. ( 8 ) MEHANGYA (P. W. 21) returned to the khaliyan and informed the accused-appellant that Sahablal Pawar was coming. On this, Mehangya went to the house of Sahablal Pawar, woke him up and informed him as to what had happened. Sahablal Pawar told him that he would meet the accused-appellant on the next day. ( 8 ) MEHANGYA (P. W. 21) returned to the khaliyan and informed the accused-appellant that Sahablal Pawar was coming. However, when Sahablal Pawar did not come, the accused-appellants left the Khaliyan saying Chalo Char Chalo. On reaching the house of Sahablal pawar, the accused-appellants shouted filthy abuses at him and asked him to open the door and give them cloth. Sahablal Pawar did not open the door. The accused-appellants gave a strong push to the door from outside as a result of which the door opened. They, then, entered the house, caught hold of Sahablal Pawar and brought him outside to the lane. In the lane, while accused-appellants Pramod Kumar Shriram and Tiran kept Sahablal Pawar in their, accused-appellant Brijesh Kumar alias Rajoo inflicted knife blows on his chest and just below his shoulder. In the meanwhile, on hearing the commission from his house Yuvraj Pawar had reached, the place of occurrence. On his trying to intervene in the matter, accused-appellants Pramod Kumar and Shriram caught hold of him and accused-appellant Brijesh Kumar dealt a knife blow on his stomach. ( 9 ) AFTER assaulting Sahablal Pawar and Yuvraj in the manner stated above, the accused-appellants returned to the house of Patel Gajrajsingh (P. W. 2) where they had earlier left behind Babooblal Pawar with the bullock-cart containing 11/2 bags of sugar. At the said place, accused appellants did market with Baboolal Pawar (P. W. 16) and accused appellant Brijesh Kumar caused two stab on his shoulder and above left iliac crest. ( 10 ) AFTER the above said two sets of events were over, the village people took wounded Sahablal Pawar, Yuvraj and Baboolal (P. W. 16) on bullock carts to Multai police station situated at a distance of 10 miles from the village. At the police station, the three wounded persons lodged first information reports Exs. P-i, P-31 and P-15 during the period between 4 A. M. and 4-30 A. M. The three injured persons were thereafter sent for medical examination to the Primary Health Centre, Multai. The injury reports of Dr. Sharma (P. W. 4) in respect of them were Exs. P-4 to P-6. P-i, P-31 and P-15 during the period between 4 A. M. and 4-30 A. M. The three injured persons were thereafter sent for medical examination to the Primary Health Centre, Multai. The injury reports of Dr. Sharma (P. W. 4) in respect of them were Exs. P-4 to P-6. At the Primary Health Centre, the dying declaration of Yuvraj was recorded by Tahsildar P. K. Tiwari (P. W. 3 ). The same was Ex. P-3. Similarly, Naib Tahsildar Devi Prasad (P. W. 6) proceeded to record the dying declaration of Baboolal at the Primary Health Centre, but as Baboolal became unconscious during the course of recording of the said declaration, the same could not be completed. The said declaration of Baboolal was Ex. P-b. Dr. Sharma sent the said persons for further treatment to the Main Hospital at Betul on the same morning. However, one of them namely Yuvraj succumbed to the injuries and died in the Betul hospital on the night intervening 21st and 22nd of April, 1978. Dr. Qureshi (P. W. 5) performed the post mortem examination on 22-4-1978 at 12 noon. He was of the opinion that the death of Yuvraj was caused due to the stab injuries suffered by him. ( 11 ) SUB Inspector Mani Agnohotri (P. W. 22) reached village Joulkhera in the morning of 19-4-1978 and inspected the spot. He seized the bullock cart and 11/2 bags of sugar from near the house of Patel Gajrajsingh (D. W. 2 ). Thereafter, he arrested the four accused-appellants on the same day and seized their clothes. The Sub Inspector also made certain other seizures, but the same are not relevant for the purpose of this appeal. ( 12 ) THE defence of the accused-appellants was as follows: On the night of the date of the incident, when accused-appellants, Pramod Kumar, Shriram and Tiran were going to their field on the outskirts of their village, they found that Baboolal Pawar (P. W. 6) and his brother Mishrilal Pawar (P. W. 17) were carrying 11/2 bags of sugar in their bullock-cart on the road going towards Joulkhera. Accused-appellant Pramod Kumar was a distributor of the controlled sugar for village Joulkhera. Accused-appellant Pramod Kumar was a distributor of the controlled sugar for village Joulkhera. On suspecting that the sugar was being taken to the village for being sold in black market, they enquired from Baboolal and Mishrilal Pawar as to whom the said sugar belonged and where were they carrying the same. The two persons informed them that the sugar belonged to Birbal Barange and was being taken to village Nirgud. The three accused- appellants asked Baboolal to stop the bullock-cart. However, Baboolal started driving the cart with a speed, which met confirmed the suspicion in the mind of the three accused appellants that the sugar was being carried for being sold in black market. The three accused-appellants chased the said cart and after over taking the same took it along with its occupants to the house of Patel Gajrajsingh (D. W. 2) for doing the needful in the matter. In the meanwhile, however, Birbal Barange, Sahablal (P. W. 1), YuvrajPawar, Nathu (P. W. 2), Jhanak (P. W. 6) Hrriram (P. W. 7) and Deviram (P. W. 8) came there and started shouting that the sugar belonged to the Pawars and would not be permitted to be touched. The three accused-appellants tried to pacify the persons who had arrived, but the said persons surrounded them and started marpeet with lathies, rods and ballams. Accused-appellant Shriram escaped and ran towards the village. Accused-appellant Tirans father Darbarsingh came out from his house to intervene in the matter. However, he was given a beating by Sahablal and others. In the meanwhile, accused appellant Brijesh Kumar alias Rajoo reached there. On seeing him, all the Pawars shouted that the brothers of Pramod Kumar had come and gave a call for finishing the two brothers. One of the person rushed towards accused- appellant Brijesh Kumar with a knife in his hand. It was in this situation when the accused-appellants were surrounded by the Pawars and the said Pawars opened an assault on them that with a view to protect themselves the accused-appellants acted in exercise of their right or private defence. According to the accused-appellants, the entire incident had taken place near the house of Patel Gajrajsingh and no two sets of events had taken place at two different times and at two different places as alleged by the prosecution. According to the accused-appellants, the entire incident had taken place near the house of Patel Gajrajsingh and no two sets of events had taken place at two different times and at two different places as alleged by the prosecution. ( 13 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of the opinion that the learned. Sessions Judge erred in failing to appreciate that the abovesaid defence of the accused-appellants stood sufficiently probabilised from the oral and documentary evidence produced in the case that the accused-appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt and deserve to be acquitted. ( 14 ) IN the above connection, the most important aspect of the case was is to at what place and at what time the alleged incidents had taken place. It was significant that the Investigating Officer, Mani Agnihotri (P. W. 22), admitted in no uncertain terms in para 47 of his deposition that the only blood may be that were found at the place of occurrence were these existing on the outer wall of Patel Gajrajsinghs catla and that there were no blood marks found either inside or outside the house of Sahablal Pawar. Now, it was impossible to believe that had any assault been made on Sahablal and Yuvraj Pawar in front of the house of Sahablal Pawar in the manner alleged by the prosecution, there would not be tell tale blood marks at the said place. ( 15 ) AGAIN, a deliberate attempt on the part of Sahablal and other prosecution witnesses supporting him to change the time of the incident in which Sahablal and Yuvraj Pawar were stated to have received the stab injuries from some time in the evening to late in the night, as also to change the place of occurrence as regards the attack made on Sahablal from inside the house of Sahablal to outside in the lane cast a serious doubt about the particular aspect of the case. It was clear that on realising that their earlier statements as regards both the two sets of events having taken place more or less about the same time in the evening might lead to the conclusion that the said two sets of events had happened at one place and at the same time the changed version as regards the particular sets of events relating to the assault on Sahablal and Yuvraj having taken place late in the night was put forth by the said witnesses in their evidence in the Court. It was again no realising that no blood marks were found inside the house of Sahablal that the version as regards he having been assaulted inside the house was changed to that of both he and Yuvraj having been assaulted outside in the lane. ( 16 ) THE fact that both the sets of events had taken place during the course of one and the same incident was also borne out from the contents of first information report Ex. D-15 lodged by one of the injured namely Baboolal (P. W. 16) at police station Multai. Had the assault on Sahablal and Yuvraj been made in or outside the house of Sahablal, the assault on Baboolal subsequently in or outside the house of Patel Gajraj singh, Baboolal would have had no occasion to witness the assault on Sahablal and Yuvraj. Yet, in his first information report Baboolal made a reference to the assault on Sahablal and Yuvraj in the portion marked A to A with which he was confronted in his cross-examination. The same was the position in the portion marked D to D of dying declaration Ex. D-1o made by Baboolal before Naib Tahsildar Devi Prasad (D. W. 6 ). ( 17 ) OTHERWISE also, the version of the incident put forth by the prosecution, in the shape of two sets of events appeared to be improbable and unnatural. The same was the position in the portion marked D to D of dying declaration Ex. D-1o made by Baboolal before Naib Tahsildar Devi Prasad (D. W. 6 ). ( 17 ) OTHERWISE also, the version of the incident put forth by the prosecution, in the shape of two sets of events appeared to be improbable and unnatural. If the sequence of events put forth by them was to be believed, It meant that the accused- appellant at first caught hold of the bullock-cart of Baboolal Pawar and Mishrilal Pawar carrying 11/2 bags of sugar and brought the said cart along with the said two persons to the house of Patel Gajraj Singh in Joulkhera, then went to the Khaliyan of Sahablal Badhai and raised a dispute about the thresher of Sahablal Pawar working in the said field, thereafter went to the house of Sahablal Pawar and assaulted Sahablal Pawar and Yuvraj Pawar in the manner alleged and thereafter returned to the house of Patel Gajraj Singh and picking up the old quarrel about the sugar bags caused injury to Baboolal Pawar. As against this version, the version put forth on behalf of the accused-appellants, which found support not only from the evidence of Patel Gajraj Singh (D. W. 2) but also from that of Baboolal (P. W. 16) appeared to be more probable and natural. ( 18 ) ONE other strong circumstance in favour of the defence put forth by the accused-appellants was the fact of the presence of injuries on the persons of Pramod Tiran and Darbar Singh (D. W. 4), which remained unexplained by the witnesses concerned examined on behalf of the prosecution. As a perusal of document Ex. P-1o would show accused-appellant Pramod had lacerated wound 1/2 x 1/4 x 1/4 in the middle of scapula. Accused appellant Taran had as many as five injuries three contusions and two abraisions. The contusions were in front of left micromia cevicular joint and on right temporal region and right knee joint. The abraisions were on left forearm and left third rib. The document in respect of him was Ex. P-7. Accused-appellant Tarans father Darbar Singh had two lacerated wounds and one contusion. One lacerated wound 1/2 x 1/4x 1/4 was on left temporal region and the one was 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/4 on the left forearm. The contusion was on left knee. The document in respect of him was Ex. P-7. Accused-appellant Tarans father Darbar Singh had two lacerated wounds and one contusion. One lacerated wound 1/2 x 1/4x 1/4 was on left temporal region and the one was 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/4 on the left forearm. The contusion was on left knee. The document in respect of him was Ex. D-2. It is true that as compared to five stab wounds suffered by Sahablal, Yuvraj and Baboolal, as described in Exs. P-4 to P-6, the injuries suffered by accused-appellants Pramod and Tiren and Darbar Singh (D. W. 2) were less serious. However, the said injuries, in the facts and circumstances stated above, were certainly not trivial and inasmuch as they were helpful in understanding the real genesis and the origin of the occurrence they could not be lightly brushed aside. The picture of the said injuries fitted perfectly with the genesis and the origin of the incident put forth on behalf of the accused-appellants. As accused-appellant Shriram had been successful in running away from the place of occurrence when surrounded by the Pawars, he had naturally no injury on him. Again, as accused-appellant Brijesh Kumar had reached the place of occurrence afterwards with a view save accused-appellants Pramod and Tiran and Darbar Singh (D. W. 2), he was the person who caused all the injuries to the persons attacking the above said three persons and had no injury on himself. It was clear that while speaking about the genesis and origin of the incidents, the prosecution witnesses concerned were lying on a most material point by denying the presence of the injuries on the three persons mentioned above and as such their evidence was unreliable. In the circumstances the defence version which explained not only the injuries on the opposite party but also on the persons of the accused party was certainly rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. See: Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar. ( 19 ) IT was clear from a perusal of Ex. D-12 which led to the passing of the order dated 24-5-1978 by the Collector that Mishrilal Patel (P. W. 17) was doing lot of bungling in the matter relating to the quota of sugar allotted to him for distribution in the villages in respect of which he had been appointed as a dealer. D-12 which led to the passing of the order dated 24-5-1978 by the Collector that Mishrilal Patel (P. W. 17) was doing lot of bungling in the matter relating to the quota of sugar allotted to him for distribution in the villages in respect of which he had been appointed as a dealer. There had been a complaint against him by the villagers concerned that he was not distributing the quota allotted to him and was selling it in black market. In fact, it was for the said reason that his appointment as dealer in respect of the fair price shop allotted to him had to be cancelled. The said piece of evidence also lent strength to the defence version that it was on finding that Mishrilal and his brother Baboolal Pawar were taking 11/2 bags of sugar in their cart to village Joulkhera for being sold in black market that the accused- appellants had done nothing beyond taking the cart to the house of Patel Gajraj Singh in village Joulkhera and leaving the same there. It was significant that even as per the prosecution case, the accused-appellants did not cause even a scratch to Mishrilal Pawar and that the cart along with its load of 11/2 bags of sugar was found lying by the investigating officer on the next day in front of the house of Patel Gajraj Singh in the position in which the accused-appellants had left it there. The possibility of Mishrilal Pawar finding an opportunity to gather all the Pawars of the village at the place of occurrence and open an assault on accused-appellants Pramod and Tiran and Darbar Singh (D. W. 2) and of accused-appellant Brijesh Kumar coming to the rescue of the said persons on learning about the same was not reasonably ruled out. ( 20 ) IT was obvious from the fact that excepting accused-appellant Brijesh Kumar no other accused-appellant had inflicted any injury on any of the three victims that there had been no pre-planning in the matter by the accused-appellants and that accused-appellant Brijesh Kumar had to cause all the five injuries to the three victims with a view to protect accused- appellants Pramod and Tiran and Darbar Singh (D. W. 2) who had been surrounded by the Pawars and were being beaten by them. In the situation in question; even though the five injuries caused by accused-appellant Brijesh Kumar proved to be more serious than what the mob of Pawars had been able to inflict on the accused party, it could not be said that there was any exceeding of right of private defence of person or persons by the said accused-appellant. ( 21 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this appeal as also Criminal Appeals Nos. 320 and 321 of 1979 are allowed. The convictions and sentences of the accused-appellants are set aside and they are acquitted. Accused-appellant Brijesh Kumar, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be detained in some other matter. .