JUDGMENT The Judgment of the Bench was delivered by Sriramulu, J-Accused 1 to 8, 11 and 12 in Sessions Case No 1976 of 1981 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore are the appellants 1 to 10 herein respectively. They along with A-9 and A-10 were tried for the offence under section 302 and other minor offences of the Indian Penal Code. 2. A-1 and A-3 were tried for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder, by causing the death of Nasina Ramanaiah (hereinafter called “the deceased”) at about 1 P. M. on 23rd April, 1981 near the Mahalakshmamma temple of Peddacherukuru village of Nellore Taluq. within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Nellore Rural. A-1 among them was convicted under section 302 , Indian Penal Code and sentenced there under to undergo Imprisonment for Life; and whereas A-3 of them was acquitted of the charge of murder, but was convicted and sentenced under section 324 , Indian Penal Code to undergo rigerous imprisonment for three years for causing simple injury to the decease A-1 was further convicted and sentenced under section 324, Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for causing simple injuries to P.W. 2. A-1 was also convicted and sentenced under section 148, Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. A3 was also convicted and sentenced under section 148, Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, for being a member of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon. A2 was convicted and sentenced under section 148, Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, for being the member of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon. A2 was also convicted and sentenced under section 323, Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for causing simple injury to P. W. No. 11. A-7 was convicted and sentenced under section 323, Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for causing simple injuries to P. W. No. 1. A-8 was convicted and sentenced under section 323, Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for causing simple injuries to P. W. No 4. Each of. A-7 was convicted and sentenced under section 323, Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for causing simple injuries to P. W. No. 1. A-8 was convicted and sentenced under section 323, Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for causing simple injuries to P. W. No 4. Each of. A-4 to A-8, A-11 and A-12 were convicted and sentenced under section 147, Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for being members of an unlawful asembly. The sentences of imprisonment imposed on A-1 to A3, A7, A8 and A11 under different counts were directed to run concurrently. A9 and A 10 were acquitted of the charges framed against them. 3. The case of the prosecution shortly stated is as follows: A-1, A-2 and A-7 are brothers. A-3 and A-8 are brothers. A-10 and A-11 are the associates of A-1 A-4 to A-6, A-9 and A-12 are agnates. A-3 and A-8 are the sons of A-1's sister. There were factions in the village between the Village Munsiff, Pattabhi am Reddy on one hand and one Palagani Pattabhi Ram Reddy on the other. All the accused belong to the faction of Village Munsiff Pattabhi Ram Reddy and the deceased and the injured prosecution witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 4, 8 and 11 who are Gowndlas (tappers) are the followers of Palangani Pattabhi Ram Reddy. The deceased, P.Ws. 3 and 4 are brothers and they were living jointly in the same house. All the accused and the prosecution witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 4, 8, 9, 11 and 12 are residents of Peddacherukur village. All the accused are Harijans. All the Harijans of the village Peddacherukur village dedicated a he-buffaloe for the purpose of sacrificing it to the Goddess Mathamma of their village. In the course of time the said hebuffaloe became fercious and started attacking men and cattle of the village. About a week prior to 23rd April, 1981. the said he-buffaloe attacked Vedicherla Sesha Reddy (P.W. 12) and injured his testicles, on account of which he was hospitalised and was undergoing treatment in a private hospital The deceased Nasina Ramanaiah P.W. 1 and his brothers Nasina Pedda Munuswamy P.W. 3 and China Munuswamy P.W. 4 tied the hebuffaloe in front of the house of the deceased in order to control its dangerous movements and fixed a rope to the nostrils. On 21st April, 1981, the Harijans of the village went to the house of the deceased and raised a dispute with him as to why be put a rope to the nose of the he-buffalos and there by made it unfit for the sacrifice’ to the Goddess Mathamma. The deceased and the other villagers assured the Harijans that they would provide another he-buffaloes but the Harijans did not agree. During the quarrel the Harijans beat one Kavali Masthanaiah leading to the registration of a case in Cr. No. 66 of 1981 of Nellore Rural Police Station. The accused became very much aggrieved with the deceased, P.W. 1, his brothers (P.Ws. 3, and 4) and also Nasina Venkaiah (P.W.2) as they were mainly responsible for tying the said hebuffaloe and fixing a rope to its nose and they were waiting for an opportunity to wreak vengeance against them. 4. On the date of the occurrence i.e., 23rd April, 1981 at about 1 P.M. all the accused and some others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing the deceased, P.Ws. 1 to 4 and their men and in pursuance of their common object they went into the village of Peddacherukur armed with deadly weapons like axes, spears and sticks and attacked the deceased and P.Ws. 1 to 4, 8 and 11 near Mahalakshmamma temple in Peddacherukuru village, while they were going towards their fields. On seeing the deceased and P.Ws. 1 to 4, A-1 said: * * * * * * So saying A-1 dealt a below with a small axe“* * on the head of the deceased and another blow on the right side of his neck below the ear. A-3 hit the deceased on bis right shoulder with the stick portion of his axe, as a result of which the deceased Ramanaiah fell down. When A-1 again raised his axe against the deceased, who was lying on the ground, P. W. 2 tried to catch hold of that axe with his left band and in that process he received an injury on the web between the thumb and index finger. Then Nasina Venkaiah (P.W. 2) hit A-1 with a stick on his head. A-7 then hit P.W. 1 on left leg below the knee with a stick. A-8 hit P.W. 3 on his head with a stick. Then Nasina Venkaiah (P.W. 2) hit A-1 with a stick on his head. A-7 then hit P.W. 1 on left leg below the knee with a stick. A-8 hit P.W. 3 on his head with a stick. A-11 beat P.W. 4 on his head with a stick Then P.Ws. 3 and 4 seized some sticks from the hands of some of the accused and beat A-8 and A-12. Ail the accused then raised cries and went back to their Madigawada, where they residing. 5. Alluru Linga Reddy (P.W. 9) took the deceased, who was lying unconscious, along with P.Ws. 3 and 4, who were injured to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Nellore in a Car from the place of the occurrence and got them admitted into the Hospital. 6. The Sub-Inspector of Police (P. W. 22), when informed by the Village Munsiff Pattabhi Ram Reddy at about 1 P.M. on the same day at the Police Station about the tense situation in the village on account of the dispute between Madigas and Gowndlas of the village, made an entry in the General Diary and immediately left for Peddacherukur village along with staff. He reached the village at about 2-30 P.M. He was informed at the outskirts of the village that there was a fight and some injured were taken to the Hospital. He informed that fact to the Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural on phone and himself went to the place of the occurrence near Mahalakshmamma temple. He found blood stained earth, bricks, stones and Sticks at the place of the offence opposite to the house of Bandla Subrahmanyam. He recorded the statement of P. W. No. 1 who was standing in front of his house as in Exhibit P-1. Meanwhile the Inspector of Police came there. Then he along with the Inspector of Police went to Madigawada and recorded the statement of A-1 as in Exhibit P-24. Then he sent Exhibit P-1 and P-24 through a Constable (P.W. 19) to the Police Station with a direction to register them and send the F.I.Rs. As he found injuries on the persons of A-1, A-8, A-12 and P.Ws. 1 and 2, he sent them to the Hospital through a Constable (P. W. 21) for examination and treatment. He prepared the observation report (Exhibit P-15) and the rough sketch (Exhibit P-25) of the scene of occurrence and seized M. Os. As he found injuries on the persons of A-1, A-8, A-12 and P.Ws. 1 and 2, he sent them to the Hospital through a Constable (P. W. 21) for examination and treatment. He prepared the observation report (Exhibit P-15) and the rough sketch (Exhibit P-25) of the scene of occurrence and seized M. Os. 4 to 10 in the presence of the mediators. Before sending the injured accused to the Hospital, he seized the blood stained shirt (M.O. 1) and knicker (M.O. 12) from the person of A-1, blood stained panch (M.O. 13) from the person of A-8 and blood stained banian (M.O. 14) from the person of A-12. 7. P.W. 23, the Inspector of Police, reached the village of the offence at about 3 P.M. on the same day and recorded the statements of P.Ws. 1, 2, 8, 11 and some others. He went to the Hospital and recorded the statements of P.Ws. 3 and 4. He learnt at the Hospital that at about 6-40 P.M. the injured Ramanaiah succumbed to the injuries. On the next day i.e, 24th April, 1981 at about 10-30 a.m. he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased Ramanaiah under the inquest report, Exhibit P-16, in the presence of panchayatdars. Thereafter he sent requisition to to Doctor for conducting autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. The same day he examined P.Ws. 12 and 13 and recorded their statements After completing the investigation he laid the charge-sheet. 8. The Sub-Inspector of Police (P. W. 22), on the instructions of the Inspector of Police (P.W. 23) arrested A-1, A-8 and A-12 on 9th May, 1981 at about 12 noon after they were discharged from the Hospital and on the same day at about 4 P. M. he arrested the remaining accused, except A-9, in the village and sent them to the judicial custody on the next day. A-9 surrendered before the Court on 23rd May, 1981. P. W. 22 investigated into the Case registered on the basis of the statement of A-1 under Exhibit P-24 and found it to be false. He sent a notice to that effect to A-1. 9. P.W. 5, the duty Medical Officer attached to the Government Head quarters Hospital, Nellore, on admission of the injured Ramanaiah (the deceased) by P. W. 9, examined him at 3 P. M. and found the following injuries on him. He sent a notice to that effect to A-1. 9. P.W. 5, the duty Medical Officer attached to the Government Head quarters Hospital, Nellore, on admission of the injured Ramanaiah (the deceased) by P. W. 9, examined him at 3 P. M. and found the following injuries on him. (i) Laceration of a bone deep over the right parietio occipital region. (ii) Swelling over the right temporal region. (iii) Incised wound spindle-shaped wound, one posterior to sterno-mastoid at its junction at the upper and middle one third. (iv) Two abrasions of small size over the right shoulder. (v) Black eye on the right side. (vi) Blackeye on the left side (vii) Contusion over the right maxilla. According to the Doctor injuriee Nos. 1,2, 5 and 6 were grievous in nature. Exhibit P-2 is the wound certificate issued by him. According to the Doctor the injured Ramanaiah succumbed to the injuries shortly after he was admitted into the Hospital. 10. The same day the Doctor (P.W. 5) examined P.W. 1 at 6-45 P. M. and found on his person the following injuries: (i) Skin deep laceration over the skin of left tibia in its middle with no bleading. (ii) Contusion over the left fore arm. According to P. W. 5 the injuries are simple and could have been caused with a blunt object like stick. Exhibit P-3 in the wound certificate issued by him, 11. At about 6-30 P. M., P.W. 5 examined P.W. 2 and found the following injuries: (i) Laceration of skin deep over the base of left toumb ulna aspect. (ii) Lac ration of skin deep over the first inter metacarpal space. (iii) Tender contusion over the back of middle of right forearm. According to the Doctor all the injuries were simple in nature and injuries 1 and 2 could have been caused by an axe and injury No. 3 by blunt object like a stick. Exhibit p-4 is the wound certificate issued by him. 12. The same day at about 3-55 P. M. the doctor P. W. 5 examined P. W. 3 and found a laceration over the left parietal region. In the opinion of the Doctor the injury was simple in nature and would have been caused by a sick Exhibit P-5 is the certificate issued by him. 13. 12. The same day at about 3-55 P. M. the doctor P. W. 5 examined P. W. 3 and found a laceration over the left parietal region. In the opinion of the Doctor the injury was simple in nature and would have been caused by a sick Exhibit P-5 is the certificate issued by him. 13. The same day at about 3-45 P.M. P.W. 5 examined P.W. 4 and found the following injuries: (i) Laceration in the frontal region. (ii) Laceration to the right of middle-line in the frontal region. (iii) Laceration behind wound No. 1. (iv) Abrasion over the right orbit, lower border (v) Tenderness over the 5th, 6th and 7th ribs on left side. In the opinion of the Doctor all the injuries are simple in nature and could have been caused by a blunt object like a stick. Exhibit P-6 is the wound certificate issued by him. 14. The same day at about 5-45 P. M. P.W. 5 examinee A-1 and found the following injuries on his person: (i) Laceration of skin deep vertical over the left parital eminence. (ii) Contusion over the left fore arm in the upper l/3rd. According to the Doctor the injuries were simple in nature and could have been caused by a blunt object like a stick. Exhibit P-7 is the certificate issued by him. 15. The same day he examined A-8 and found the following injuries on him; (i) Contusion over the right shoulder. (ii) Laceration over the right frontal region, just below the hair line. (iii) Tenderness over the middle of left forearm. In the opinion of the Doctor all the injuries are simple in nature and could have been caused with a blunt object like a stick. Exhibit P-9 is the wound certificate issued by him, 16. P.W. 6 the autopsy Doctor, on examination of the dead body of the deceased found the following external injuries: (i) A stutured wound on the right parieto occipital region. (ii) A stutured wound behind the right ear on the upper part of the neck. (iii) A contusion on the right maxillary region. (iv) A linear abrasion on the upper part of the right shoulder. (v) Black eye on the left side. On internal examination be found the following injuries: There was fracture of the skull. (ii) A stutured wound behind the right ear on the upper part of the neck. (iii) A contusion on the right maxillary region. (iv) A linear abrasion on the upper part of the right shoulder. (v) Black eye on the left side. On internal examination be found the following injuries: There was fracture of the skull. Right parietal bone starting from the right parietal prominence was found extending to the temporal fossa and extending over the stuture-line to the base of the skull. The right maxillary bone was found fractured. There was sub dural haematoma in the right parietal region; and the right parietal lobe of the brain was lacerated. There was a blood clot in the lateral ventricle. According to the Doctor the external injury No. 1 correspond to the internal fracture of the skull bone, laceration of brain and presence of sub-dural haematoma and external injury No 3 corresponds to the fracture of the maxillary bone. In the opinion of the Doctor the deceased would appear to have died of injury to the vital organ viz, barinand shock due to haemorrhage as a result of injuries. He further opined that the external injury No. 1 with its corresponding internal injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. According to the Doctor, external injuries 1 and 2 could have been caused by a weapon like an exe and external injury No. 3 could have been caused by a blunt object like a stick. He did not agree with the view that the external injury No. 4 could be caused by a stick, as the injury was linear and its width was l/8th inch. Exhibit P-11 is the post-mortem certificate 17. The defence of the accused as regards the assult on the deceased Nasina Ramanaiah and P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 11 was that of denial. When examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused admitted that they and the other Harijans of the village dedicated a he buffaloe to their villages Goddess Mathamma, that the said he-buffaloe became very much ferocious in the course of time and it was attacking cattle and men in the village. When examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused admitted that they and the other Harijans of the village dedicated a he buffaloe to their villages Goddess Mathamma, that the said he-buffaloe became very much ferocious in the course of time and it was attacking cattle and men in the village. They further admitted that at about 8 P. M: on 17th April, 1981 the he-buffaloc attacked one Vedicherla Seshareddy (P.W. 12) and injured his testicles and that three days thereafter it attacked the bullock of the deceased in the early morning and that thereupon the deceased and his brothers P.Ws. 3 and 4; P.W. 1 and P.W. 14 managed to catch hold of the he-buffaloe and the deceased put a rope to the nostrils of the he-buffaloe and tied it up. But the accused denied to have protested against the deceased and raised a dispute with him and thereafter to hare assaulted the deceased and other prosecution witnesses on the day of the occurrence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on a consideration of the testimony of the eyewitness P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 11 and the medical evidence came to the conclusion that the testimoney of the eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 4, 8 and 11 is true and worthy of acceptance and relying upon the testimony of the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence he held that the participation of the accused 1 to 8, 11 and V. in the commission of the offence is established beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as stated above. 18. Shri Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the motive pressed into service is too weak for such a desparate attack right in the open street, during the day time in front of the witnesses, it is likely that the deceased and the prosecution witnesses provocated the accused by the kind of the abuses indulged in or there was something else which had not come out in evidence as it was the prosecution party which was aggrieved on account of the ferocious and dangerous acts of the he-buffaloe. 19. 19. It is the specific case of the prosecution and it is also admitted by the accused that when the he-buffalloe became a menace to the people and attacked P. W. 12 and caused injuries to his testicles and also attack the bullock of the deceased, the deceased and others some how caught hold of the he-buffaloe and in order to keep it under control put a rope to its nostrils and tied it up at the house of the deceased. It is only on account of the acts of the deceased and others by detaining the ferocious hebuffaloe of the accused and also by putting the rope to its nostrils the accused and others of the Harijanwada became furious and went against the deceased a few days earlier to the date of the offence and raised quarrel with the deceased and they were waiting for an opportunity to wreak vengeance against the deceated and his men. If really the deceased party was aggrieved on account of the damage done by the ferocious and dangerous he-buffaloe belonging to the accused party, they would have gone to the Harijanwada and raised a dispute with the accused party. Evidently the deceased party were merely satisfied by the deceased and his men some how catching hold of the he-buffaloe, putting a rope to its nostrils and tying it up at the house of the deceased. That act of the deceased would have enraged the accused party and it is established from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4, 8 and 11 that all the accused along with other Harijans went to the house of the deceased Ramanaiah and raised dispute with him questioning his propriety to tie up their he-buffaloe which was intended for sacrifice for their Goddess Mathamma and as to why he put a rope to its nostrils on account of which the hebuffaloe ceased to be fit for sacrifice. Evidently the religious sentiments of the Harijans who belonged to the rival faction were hurt and they were bent upon wreaking vengeance against the deceased and his men. Evidently the religious sentiments of the Harijans who belonged to the rival faction were hurt and they were bent upon wreaking vengeance against the deceased and his men. Further it is established from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that all the accused and other Harijans went in a body armed with deadly weapons like axes, spears and sticks all the way from Harijanwada, which is in the outskirts of the village upto the house of the deceased Ramanaiah, which is situated in the Gavandlapalem near Mahalakshmamma temple at a distance of about one furlong from the Harijanwada. 20. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the motive suggested by the prosecution is feeble and in fact there was no adequate motive for the accused to commit the death of the deceased Ramanaiah and to cause injuries to others. It is well settled that where the direct evidence regarding the assault is worthy of credence and can be believed, the question of motive becomes more or less academic. Sometimes the motive is clear an 1 can be proved and sometimes, however, the motive is shrouded in mystery and it is very difficult to locate the same. If, however, the evidence of the eyewitnesses in credit worthy and is believed by the Court which has placed implicit reliance on then, the question whether there was any motive or not becomes irrelevant, (vide Molu v. State of Haryana Molu v. State of Haryana (1976) Crl.L.J. 1895: (1976)4 S.C.C. 362 : (1976) S.C.C. (Crl) 636: A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2499 In Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab A. I R. 1956 S. C. 460 the Supreme Court held that: “Where the positive evidence against the accused is clear, cogent and reliable, the question of motive is of no importance. Evidence as to motive is relevant merely for the purpose of lending assurance to the evidence as to the commission of the Crime and fortifying it. But where the evidence as to the commission of the offence is clear and has been accepted by the Court, the fact that the prosecution is unable to adduce any evidence as to the motive for the offence, losses all importance”. 21. We have, therefore, to consider whether the testimony of the eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 4, 8 and 11 is men as to merit acceptance. 21. We have, therefore, to consider whether the testimony of the eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 4, 8 and 11 is men as to merit acceptance. As regards the testimony of these witnesses the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that. “A careful scrutiny of their evidence. I do not find anything incredible. The learned Counsel for the accused did not point out anything in their evidence which tends to discredit their testimony”. 22. The learned Counsel for the appellants next contended that all the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution are partisans and close relatives of the deceased and it was not safe to act upon their testimony without seeking independant corroboration. The case of the prosecution rests upon the occular evidence of P.W. 1 to 4, 8 and 11 all of whom belong to Gowndla community. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are brothers of the deceased. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are their Dayadees, P.W. 11 is the wife of P.W. 3 and P.W. 8 is nephew of P.W. 1. Thus all the eye-witnesses are closely related to each other. The relation. ship of the above mentioned eye-witnesses to the deceased would, in our opinion, be not a sufficient ground for discrediting their testimony. 23. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Soman das State of Uttar Pradesh v. Soman das (1972) 3 S.C.C. 201 : (1972) S.C.C. (Crl.) 275: (1973) 2 S.C.J. 345: (1973) MLJ. (Crl.) 504: (1972) 3 S.C.R. 58 : (1972) Crl.L.J. 487: A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 677, the Supreme Court held: “It is well known that the close relatives of a murdered person are most reluctant to spare the real assailant and falsely involve another person in the place of the assailant”. Witnesses, even though, they may be related, should not be discredited because of their relation only. It does not necessarily follow that a witness, who is related to the deceased will always speak untruth or will implicate wrong persons falsely. In this connection the following passage from the decision of the Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab 1953 S.C.J. 532: 1954 S.C.R. 145: A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 364 is apposite: “A witness normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness; has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and he governed by its own facts. This is not to say that in a given case a Judge for reasons special to that case and to what witness cannot say that he is not prepared to believe the witness because of his general unreliability, or for other reasons unless he corroborated. Of course, that can be done. But the basis for such a conclusion must rest on facts special to the particular instance and cannot be grounded on a supposedly general rule of prudence enjoined by law as in the case of accomplices”. There is no general rule that the evidence of the relations of the deceased must be corroborated for securing the conviction of the offender State of Uttra Pradesh v. P.N. Singh State of Uttra Pradesh v. P.N. Singh (1973) 2 S.C.J. 199: (1973) MLJ. (Crl.) 374: (1973) Crl.L.J. 850: (1973) S.C.C. (Crl.) 453: (1973) 1 S.C.C. 398 : A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1073, Relationship by itself is not a ground to discredit the testimony of witnesses, if it is otherwise found to be consistent and true. As a general rule of prudence the testimony of a interested witness should be scrutinised with a little are and once it has a ring of truth, it can be acted upon without corroboration. It is neither a tainted evidence nor can be equated to that of an approver. As a general rule of prudence the testimony of a interested witness should be scrutinised with a little are and once it has a ring of truth, it can be acted upon without corroboration. It is neither a tainted evidence nor can be equated to that of an approver. Sarwan Singh v. State of Puujab Sarwan Singh v. State of Puujab (1976) Crl.L.J. 1757: (1976) 4 S.C.C 369 : (1976) S.C.C. (Crl.) 646: A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2304, Plara Singh v. State of Punjab Plara Singh v. State of Punjab (1978) 1 S.C.J. 200: (1978) MLJ. (Crl.) 186: (1978) 1 S.C.R. 597 : A.I.R 1977 S.C. 2274, Bhanuprasad v. State of Gujarat Bhanuprasad v. State of Gujarat (1968) (Crl.) L.J. 1505: (1969) 1 S.C.J. 300: A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1223 and Rambhurala Reddy v. State of Ahdhra Pradesh Rambhurala Reddy v. State of Ahdhra Pradesh (1971) Crl. L.J. 422: A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 460. 24. The evidence of the above mentioned witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 4, 8 and 11 was found by the learned Sessions Judge to be convincing and reliable. After having been taken through that evidence we see no cogent ground to take a view different from that of the Sessions Judge. The evidence of these eye-witnesses is clear, consistent and convincing. Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to discredit or disbelieve their testimony or to throw any suspicion about the correctness of the version given by all of them consistently. Further P.Ws 1 to 4 and 11 are also the victims of the assault and the testimony of each of them is corroborated by the testimony of the other and the testimony of all of them is corroborated by the testimony ofP.W. 8 On a consideration of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4, 8 and 11, the trial Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that their evidence is true and worthy of acceptance That there was enmity and bad-blood between the party of the accused. who belong to the faction led by the village Munsif and the party of the deceased which was led by P. Pattabhi Ram Reddy is not open to any doubt in view of the admission made by the accused in their statements under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code and Exhibit P-24. The occurrence did take place on the date, time and place as given by the prosecution. The occurrence did take place on the date, time and place as given by the prosecution. The manner of occurrence in so far as it relates to the attack on the deceased by A-1 and A-3. the attack on P.W. 2 by A-1 the attack on P.W. 3 by A-8, the attack on P.W. 4 by A-11 and the attack on P.W. 11 by A-2 has been proved to the hilt. The fact that P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 11 have received injuries in the same occurrence, their occular version of the incident is of great value and it is the hallmark of their presence at the scene. Further their evidence is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. On a consideration of the testimony of the Doctor, P. W. 5, who testified to the injuries on the persons of P.Ws. 1 to 4, the testimony of P.W. 15 who found injuries on the person of P.W. 11 and also the testimony of the post-mortem Doctor, P.W 6, who testified the injuries to the deceased, probabilises the version advanced by the injured eye witnesses P.Ws 1 to 4 and 11 and also the eye-witness P.W. 8. 25. The learned Counsel for the appellants next contended that inasmuch as the prosecution witnesses did not explain the injuries on the persons of A-1, A-8 and A-12, it has thus not presented the true version of the occurrence and, therefore, their evidence is unreliable. It is in the evidence of the Doctor, P. W. 5, that the injuries sustained by A-1, A-8 and A-12 were simple and minor in nature. In Bhagwan v. State of Maharashtra Bhagwan v. State of Maharashtra (1974) MLJ. (Crl.) 258: (1974) 1 S.C.J. 571: (1974) Cri.L.J. 145: (1974) S.C.C. (Crl.) 11: (1974) 3 S.C.C. 536 : A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 21 it was observed that there was no hard and fast rule that simply because the prosecution witnesses does not explain the injuries on the person of the accused, their entire evidence should be discarded. 26. In fact the prosecution has explained the manner in which the injuries were caused toA-1, A-8 and A-12. There is evidence to show that when A-8 beat P. W. 3 with a stick P.W. 4 snatched away the stick from some one and beat A-12. 27. 26. In fact the prosecution has explained the manner in which the injuries were caused toA-1, A-8 and A-12. There is evidence to show that when A-8 beat P. W. 3 with a stick P.W. 4 snatched away the stick from some one and beat A-12. 27. The learned Counsel for the appellants then contended that there are number of circumstances to hold that the prosecution party were the aggressors and the accused acted only in self defence. This plea was neither raised by the accused in their section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, statements nor suggested in the course of the cross-examination of the witnesses. There is also nothing in the testimony of the eye-witnesses to make out a case of self defence in favour of the accused. Even the complaint Exhibit P-24 given by A-1 does not show that the deceased and the injured witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 4and 11 have attacked the accused party being the aggressors. What all has been stated in Exhibit P-24 is that at the time of the incident A-1 was going alone the street to Gavandlapalem from north to south, and at that time one Palagani Pattaiah pointing out to him said to Nasina Ragaiah (P.W. 14) that A1 had removed the nosestring of the he-buffaloe high handedly and went away and that then there was some exchange of words between A1 and P.W. 14. Further it is mentioned in the report that P.W. 14 hit A-1 with an axe on his head, But strangely the Doctor, P.W. 5 who examined A1 found only a simple injury. If really P.W. 14 had hit A1 with at heavy cutting instrument like an axe it would have definitely caused serious injuries. The evidence of the Doctor, P.W. 5 does not probabilise the version given in Exhibit P-24. According to the Doctor, the injury found on the head of A1 should have been caused by a blunt object like a stick. It was not elicited int the evidence of the Doctor, P. W. 5 that the injury on the head of A-1 could as well be caused by an axe. Further it is mentioned in Exhibit P. 24 that P.W. 1 beat A1 on his left fore-arm with a stick as a result of which he fell down unconscious near Mahalakshmama temple. Further it is mentioned in Exhibit P. 24 that P.W. 1 beat A1 on his left fore-arm with a stick as a result of which he fell down unconscious near Mahalakshmama temple. But strangely the Doctor found very simple and minor injuries on the person of A-1. Further it is mentioned in Exhibit P. 24 that A1 learnt that A-8 was beaten by one Balakrishnaiah of Narukuru village and that one Venkaiah and A-12 were beaten by one Balakrishnaiah and one Nasina Venkaiah. There is no mention of this fact in the statements of A-8 and A-12 recorded under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. Thus there is nothing in Exhibit P-24 to make out a case of right of private defence. Of course the plea of right of private-defence need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough if he establishes facts which on the trest of preponderance of probabilities make the defence acceptable, (vide Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab (1975) Crl.L.J. 1965. (1975) S.C.C. (Crl.) 512: (1975) 4 S.C.C. 254 : A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2161. Even if the accused does not plead self defence, it is open to the Court to consider such a plea if the same arises from the materials on record. In the present case it was the party of the accused who were the aggressors since they went to the house of the deceased and caused fatal injuries and also caused injuries to P.Ws. 1 to 4 and. 11. It was the accused party which went in a body from Harijanwada armed with deadly weapons like spears, axes and sticks upto the house of the deceased covering a distance of about one furlong and attacked the deceased and caused fatal injuries and also caused injuries to P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 11. From the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 4, 8 and 11. it is established that the accused and their party were the aggressors and it was the members of that party that attacked the deceased and P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 11. If the members of the prosecution party were held to be aggressors then it was difficult to believe that the accused should have escaped with minor injuries The absence of any grievous injury whatever on the side of the accused was itself enough to disprove the plea of private defence. 28. 1 to 4 and 11. If the members of the prosecution party were held to be aggressors then it was difficult to believe that the accused should have escaped with minor injuries The absence of any grievous injury whatever on the side of the accused was itself enough to disprove the plea of private defence. 28. In the result, we do not think that here is any justification for us to interfere with the convictions and sentences recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed and the convictions and sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the appellants are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.