S. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) IN an incident that took place in village Barkhera Khuman a district Sagar on 8- 9-197, at about 12 in the morning one Gopi (40 years) sustained an incised injury of a serious nature on his head near a Chabutra belonging to P. W. 1 Kaushal Kishore and died as a result of the said injury within a couple of hours while being taken to district hospital Sagar. Of the six accused persons namely Devi Singh, Sher Singh, Badansingh, Surat Singh. Babu alias Balram and Fulsingh who were tried by the trial Court for the murder of Gopi and for certain other offences connected there with, two of them namely Devi Singh and Sher Singh were convicted under section 302 read with sections 34 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for four months for the two offences two others namely Badan Singh and Ballu alias Balram were convicted under section 452 of the Indian Penal Code but were ordered to be released on probation of good conduct and the remaining two namely Surat Singh and Fulsingh were given benefit of doubt and were acquitted. The present appeal by accused Devi Singh and Sher Singh is directed against their convictions under sections 302/34 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Badan Singh and Ballu alias Balram have not chosen to file any appeal against their conviction under section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) P. W. 1 Kaushal Kishore was brother of P. W. 10 Prakash Narayan who was Sarpanch of the village. Kaushal Kishore was himself quite an influential person of the village. It appeared that apart from doing cultivation Kaushal Kishore carried on money lending business also, Deceased Gopi was Kaushal Kishores servant. He lived in a house situated in front of the house of Kaushal Kishore. P. W. 6 Dibbi and P. W. 8 Ramesh were sons of deceased Gopi. It appeared that they too assisted Kaushal Kishore in his work. P. W. 5 Rajju was another servant of Kaushal Kishore. He lived in a house situated in front of the house of Kaushal Kishore. P. W. 6 Dibbi and P. W. 8 Ramesh were sons of deceased Gopi. It appeared that they too assisted Kaushal Kishore in his work. P. W. 5 Rajju was another servant of Kaushal Kishore. ( 3 ) IT would be clear from the events that formed the background of the incident which happened on the morning of 8-9-1979 and in fact led to the same that this P. W. 1 Kaushal Kishore acted as some sort of a tyrant in the village. He had little regard for law and believed in utilizing his own might and that of musclemen for obtaining whatever he wanted. ( 4 ) ONE Lalju had borrowed some money from P. W. 1 Kaushal Kishore about 8 to 10 months prior to the date of the incident. As there had been no repayment of the money borrowed, Kaushal Kishore had forcibly taken into It is possession a bullock belonging to Lalju about 6 or 7 months prior to the date of the incident. He had kept that bullock with him for a period of 6 months. Thereafter, Lalju had been successful in regaining the possession of his bullock from Kaushal Kishore. ( 5 ) IT was in the abovesaid background that on the date of the incident i. e. 8-9-1979 a couple of hours before 11 A. M. P. W. 1 Kaushal Kishore along with his muscle-men including P. W. 5 Rajju, P. W. 6 Dibbi, P. W. 8 Ramesh and a few others had gone to the house of Lalju for taking forcible possession of the bullock belonging to Lalju for the second time. P. W. 6 Dibbi had been armed with a Kulhadi and P. W. 5 Rajju had a lathi with him. However, instead of Lalju, the said persons found accused Suraj and one Mardan present in the house of Lalju. Accused Suraj and this did not permit P. W. 1 Kaushal Kishore and his men to take away the bullock belonging to Lalju. ( 6 ) IT was what followed thereafter that gave rise to two connecting versions of the incident put forth by the prosecution and the defence in the present case. According to the prosecution, there happened two separate incident thereafter. On their return from the house of Lalju. ( 6 ) IT was what followed thereafter that gave rise to two connecting versions of the incident put forth by the prosecution and the defence in the present case. According to the prosecution, there happened two separate incident thereafter. On their return from the house of Lalju. Kaushal Kishore met his friend P. W. 7 Uma Shanker who was a Forest Guard and certain other persons on the way and halted there. However, his muscle-men including P. W. 5 Rajju. P. W. 6 Dibbi and others went ahead. Very soon, accused Suraj also followed them. The first incident took place after a little while when there was a fight between the muscle-men of Kaushal Kishore on the One side and members of the accused party namely Suraj, Badan Singh etc. on the other. It was alleged that P. W. 6 Dibbi got a beating during the course of this first incident. It was further alleged that P. W. 1 Kaushal Kishore and P. W. 7 Uma Shanker intervened in the matter and the first incident came to an end as a result of their intervention. The second incident happened soon thereafter in the house of P. W. 1 Kaushal Kishore. All the six accused, armed with different weapons like Kulhadi, Katarna and lathi, reached the house of P. W. 1 Kaushal Kishore. It about 11 A. M. and at first gave a chase to P. W. 5 Rajju and P. W. 6 Dibbi inside the house and after that meeting Gopi sitting near a Chabutra outside the said house is assaulted him mercilessly. As already stated above, Gopi died a couple of hours after the incident while being taken to the hospital. ( 7 ) AS against the abovesaid version, put forth by the prosecution, the defence version was there were no two separate incidents as alleged by the prosecution and that there was only one single incident in which while accused Suraj was passing by the side of the house of P. W. 1 Kaushal Kishore, Kaushal Kishore and his muscle-men including deceased Gopi and his son P. W. 6 Dibbi stopped him and opened an assault on him, when accused Devi Singh who was following accused Suraj a few steps behind, reached there, he asked Kaushal Kishore and his men to stop the beating. However, instead of doing so, Kaushal Kishore and his men rushed at accused Devi Singh with a view to make an assault on him. In the process, accused Devi Singh was successful in snatching a tabbal to protect himself and it was how Gopi received one single injury on his head that resulted in his death. In substance, the defence plea was that of accused Devi Singh having acted in exercise of right of private defence of his person. Four of the six accused namely Sher Singh, Badan Singh, Ballu alias Balram and Ful Singh denied their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and submitted that they were falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity. ( 8 ) ON an appreciation of the evidence produced in the case, the trial Court accepted the case of the prosecution as regards not one but two separate incidents having taken place as stated above, but found only four out of the six accused guilty of offences under Sections 302/34 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 9 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of the opinion, that as certain significant aspects of the case supporting the defence version were lost sight of by the trial Court, the appeal deserves to be allowed. ( 10 ) IN the first instance, the trial Court failed to take into account the fact that the entire edifice of the prosecution case was built on the version given out by P. W. 1 Kaushal Kishore in the first information report (Ex. P. 1) lodged by him at police station Narayoli after about 8 hours of the incident. Apart from P. W. 1 Kaushal Kishore, other alleged eyewitnesses examine by the prosecution in the case were persons who were either related to him closely or were otherwise under his influence. Now, it was apparent that this Kaushal Kishore had no respect for truth. As per his own admission he had incorporated certain such things in his report as were false to his knowledge. It was not in dispute that accused Suraj bad sustained quite a few injuries on the morning of date of the incident. Now, it was apparent that this Kaushal Kishore had no respect for truth. As per his own admission he had incorporated certain such things in his report as were false to his knowledge. It was not in dispute that accused Suraj bad sustained quite a few injuries on the morning of date of the incident. It was also not in dispute that P. W. 1 Kaushal Kishore was one of the persons who were accused of causing the said injuries to accused Suraj in the concerned case. It was stated by P. W. I Kaushal Kishore without any shame in his evidence in the Court that accused Suraj had not been present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and it was only because the said accused had implicated him falsely in the case relating to the assault made on him be mentioned the name of the said accused as one of the assailants in the first information report lodged by him. ( 11 ) THE abovesaid stand taken by Kaushal Kishore who was the main architect of the prosecution story could have only two implications one either that the entire version of the incident narrated by him was false and a figment of his imagination or two that it was realizing that the presence of accused Suraj at the place of occurrence at the relevant time might also indicate him in the matter that he was out to deny the presence of the said accused at the stage of evidence and trying to suggest the story of not one but two incidents having taken place for that reason. From whichever angle the matter is viewed, the effect was that the prosecution version became highly suspect and there appeared to be no reason to discard the defence version. ( 12 ) AGAIN, the trial Court failed to appreciate that in the light of those facts and circumstances which were not in dispute the defence version appeared to be more natural and probable. ( 12 ) AGAIN, the trial Court failed to appreciate that in the light of those facts and circumstances which were not in dispute the defence version appeared to be more natural and probable. It was an admitted position that Kaushal Kishore and his muscle-men bad gone to the house of Lalju a couple of hours before the incident with a view to take forcible possession of the bullock belonging to Lalju and that it was on account of the presence of accused Suraj and other person in the house of Lalju on the said occasion that Kaushal Kishore and others had failed to achieve their object. Naturally, Kaushal Kishore, the type of person he was, was not to take the defeat lying down. In the said circumstances it appeared very natural and probable that when a little afterwards accused Suraj happened to pass by the side of the house of Kaushal Kishore, the latter found it to be a good opportunity to settle the score. Like P. W. 5 Rajju, P. W. 6 Dibbi and P. W. 8 Ramesh, deceased Gopi was admittedly in the employment of Kaushal Kishore. It was not improbable that Gopi joined P. W. 1 Kaushal Kishore and other in making the assault on accused Suraj and received the head injury that resulted in his death at the bands of accused Devi Singh in the manner alleged by the defence. ( 13 ) IN fact, it was surprising that the trial Court failed to take note of the fact that the prosecution story as regards the manner in which deceased Gopi was stated to have been assaulted by the six accused was highly dramatized and grossly exaggerated. The merciless beating said to have been given by the six accused with different weapons like Kulhadi, Katarana and Lathi did not tally with the medical evidence produced in the case. As already stated, the post-mortem examination of Gopi revealed only two injuries-one on the head and the other on the back. Out of these it was the head injury that resulted in the death of Gopi. It was not understandable as to how in such dramatized and exaggerated stage of evidence, the trial Court could find it safe to pick up two of the six accused namely Devi Singh and Sher Singh for convicting them under Sections 302/34, (and 452) of the Indian Penal Code. It was not understandable as to how in such dramatized and exaggerated stage of evidence, the trial Court could find it safe to pick up two of the six accused namely Devi Singh and Sher Singh for convicting them under Sections 302/34, (and 452) of the Indian Penal Code. ( 14 ) IN our opinion, for the reasons stated above, the convictions and sentences awarded to the accused-appellants under Sections 302/34 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code are liable to be set aside and they deserve to be acquitted. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The convictions and sentences of the accused-appellants are set aside and they are acquitted. They shall be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be detained in some other matter. .