JUDGMENT R. P.Shukla, J. 1. Chulhai, his two sons Mukhram and Ramji, grand son Ram Kesh and nephew Ram Murat have been convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment under sections 302/149, 307/149, 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149, IPC. 2. Mukhram and Ram Kesh are further sentenced to two years R. I. under Section 14s, IPC. Chulhai, Ramji and Ram Murat are convicted and sentenced to one year R. I. under Section 147, IPC each. All the sentences of all the appellants were made to run concurrently. Aggrieved by this order of First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi dated 30-7-1977 in session trial no. 23 of 1977, the appellants have preferred this appeal no. 1640 of 1977. The report of Chief Judicial Magistrate Varanasi dated 22-1-1983 Confirmed that appellant Chulhai son of Patti died his natural death about a year and half, and hence his appeal abates. 3. The prosecution case as disclosed in the first information report (Ext. Ka 7) is that on the morning of 14-7-1976 after sun rise Dubri, his son Ram Dulare and his ploughman Khichchar had gone to plough their plot no. 1/14 situate in village Atarwa. While they were getting ready to plough the field, appellants Mukhram, Ramji son of Chulhai, Ram Kesh son of Mukhram, Ram Murat son of Lotai and Chulhai son of Patti of village Pharsa came from the south. Mukhram had Gandasa, Ram Kesh had a Barcha and the others had lathis. They started assaulting Dubri and Ram Dulare and on alarm Ram Jatan and Lalli brothers of Dubri came running to help. They were also belaboured by the appellants. Khichchar tried to intervene but he too was beaten. The occurrence was witnessed by Mathai son of Ramman, Shiv Narain son of Kedar and Genda Mushar all of village Bhardua. The appellants took four bullocks of Dubri to the cattle-pond. As the condition of the injured was some what serious, they arranged for a tractor and went to lodge a first information report. The oral report was lodged by Dubri at 12.15 p. m. at police station Chakia on the same day. The report is Ext. Ka 7. An entry of this first information report was made in the general diary Ext. Ka.8 and a case under Section 147/148/149/307, IPC was registered on its basis. 4. The injured were sent to Primary Health Centre Naugarh for their medical examination. The report is Ext. Ka 7. An entry of this first information report was made in the general diary Ext. Ka.8 and a case under Section 147/148/149/307, IPC was registered on its basis. 4. The injured were sent to Primary Health Centre Naugarh for their medical examination. On their way to Primary Health Centre, Naugarh, Ram Jatan succumbed to his injuries. Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta, PW 2, was the Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre. He found Ram Jatan dead and made a note Ext. Ka. 1 to this effect on his report for medical examination. Dubri was medically examined at 5.30 P. M. on 14-7-1976 and following injuries were found on his person: 1. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm over the middle of the right parietal region, 7 cm from right pinna. 2. Bruise 15 cm x 1-1/2 cm over the left supra scapular region. 3. Bruise 7 cm x 1-1/2 cm over the right supra condylar region. 4. Bruise 9 cm x 1-1/2 cm over upper region of the right forearm. 5. Punctured wound 1 cm x 1/8 cm x bone deep over the medial side of the right lower fore-arm. Swelling. 3 cm x 2 cm over the back of the lower left fore-arm. 7. Bruise 1-1/2 cm x 4 cm over the back of the left fore-arm below the elbow. 8. Fracture of the left middle fore arm (Both bones). The injury report is Ext. Ka. 2. Ram Dulare was examined on the same day at 5.45 p. m. and the following injuries were found on his person : 1. Incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm x bone deep over the right post parietal region 12 cm from right pinna. 2. Incised wound 5 cm x 1-1/2 cm x bone deep over the right post parietal region 9 cm from right pinna. 3. Bruise 8 cm x 1-1/2 Cm over the lateral side of the middle of the left arm 9 cm from the left lateral side of the middle of the left arm, 9 cm from the left lateral condyle. 4. Bruise 4 cm over the back of the left lower fore arm 5 cm from the left wrist joint. 5. Bruise 20 cm x 1-1/2 cm over the right shoulder extending upto lateral wrist joint. 6. 4. Bruise 4 cm over the back of the left lower fore arm 5 cm from the left wrist joint. 5. Bruise 20 cm x 1-1/2 cm over the right shoulder extending upto lateral wrist joint. 6. Bruise 7 cm x 1-1/2 cm over the lateral side of the middle of the right arm. 7. Bruise 6 cm x 1-1/2 cm over the lower portion of the right arm. 8. Bruise 19 cm x 1-1/2 cm over the lateral side of the front of the right fore-arm. 9. Bruise 2 cm x 2 cm over the middle of the right back 10. Bruise 22 cm x 5 cm over the lower portion of the back. 11. Bruise 12 cm x 2 cm on lower portion of the left back. 12. Bruise 12 cm x 3 cm over the lower part of the right side of the back. 13. Bruise 19 cm x 3 cm over the lateral side of the upper portion of the right thigh. 14. Bruise 14 cm x 2 cm over the lateral side of the upper portion of the right thigh. 15. Bruise 8 cm x 2 cm over the lateral side of the middle of the left thigh. Injuries Nos.1 and 2 of Ram Dulare were found grievous. 5. Kbichchar was examined at 6.00 p. m. on the same day and had swelling 10 cm x 2 cm over the Iateral side of the right upper leg. The injury was simple. 6. Lalli was examined at 6.15 p. m. and had following injuries : 1. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep over the middle of the right parietal region 8 cm from the right pinna. 2. Swelling 8 cm x 3 cm over the upper right shin of tibia. 3. Brusie 7 cm x 1 cm over the left side of the middle right arm. Injury no. 1 was found grievous. Except Khichchar the others injured were admitted in the hospital. Next day they were removed to hakia and a few days thereafter they were removed to S.S.P.G. Hospital, Varanasi. Dr. M. A. Hafeez PW 3, Medical Officer S.S.P.G. Hospital conducted the post- mortem on the dead body of Ram Jatan on 15-7-1976 at 4.30 p. m. The post-mortem report is Ext. Ka. 6. It shows the following ante mortem injuries : 1. Dr. M. A. Hafeez PW 3, Medical Officer S.S.P.G. Hospital conducted the post- mortem on the dead body of Ram Jatan on 15-7-1976 at 4.30 p. m. The post-mortem report is Ext. Ka. 6. It shows the following ante mortem injuries : 1. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm skin deep 4 cm above right eye brow on forehead. 2. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm x 2 cm above eye brow below injury no. 1. 3. Abrasion 3 cm x 3/4 cm over outer centhus of right eye 3 cm behind the temporal side. 4. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, 8 cm above right ear. 5. Lacerated wound on pinna of left ear 1-1/2 cm x 1/2 cm. 6. Abrasion with contusion 10 cm x 4 cm right arm outer side middle. 7. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle deep back of right forearm 8 cm below elbow. Fractue of radius bone behind the injury palpable. 8. Contusion 18 cm x 11 cm extending from right elbow to the middle finger of the forearm. 9. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm on back of left lower surface of left arm just above elbow joint. 10. Contusion 10 cm x 7 cm left forearm back lower part. Fracture of radius bone and dislocation of ulna. 11. Contusion 7 cm x 9 cm on back left scapular region. 12. Multiple contusion in an area of 15 cm x 2-1/2 cm on back in middle left side. 13. Contusion 6 cm x 4 cm, 2 cm below injury no. 12. 14. Contusion 21 cm x 3 cm on both sides of back, 8 cm above iliac crest. (B) On Internal Examination : Peritoneum at the level of left kidney was found congested. Coagulated blood was found in capsule of left kidney. One oz. of yellow fluid was found in the stomach. In the opinion of the doctor the deceased had died of shock and haemorrhage. Ext. Ka. 19 is the X-ray report of left fore-arm injury of Dubari. It shows fracture of both bones of left forearm lower part. The investigation of this case was taken up by Raj Bahadur Singh, the then station officer, Naugarh district Varanasi. After competing the investigation, the station officer submitted charge-sheet Ext. Ka. 17 against all the accused on 11-9-1976. 7. 19 is the X-ray report of left fore-arm injury of Dubari. It shows fracture of both bones of left forearm lower part. The investigation of this case was taken up by Raj Bahadur Singh, the then station officer, Naugarh district Varanasi. After competing the investigation, the station officer submitted charge-sheet Ext. Ka. 17 against all the accused on 11-9-1976. 7. The appellants have set up a counter version. A first information report was lodged by Mukhram against Dubri, Ramjatan, Lalli, Ram Dulare and Khichchar on 14-7-1976 at 12.00 noon at police station Naugarh district Varanasi. According to this report, there has been litigation between appellant Mukhram and Dubri and others with respect to plot no. 1/12 situate in village Bhardua. Ultimately the case was decided in favour of appellant Mukharam and demarcation was made. A day before the occurrence the appellants had sown paddy seeds in the said field. In the night before the day of occurrence, father of appellant Mukhram i.e.Chulhai slept on the field to watch the same. On the morning of occurrence after sun rise, the accused named in this first information report came on this field with yoke and bullocks and armed with lathis and started reploughing the field to upturn the seeds sown in the field. Chulhai when objected was beaten with lathis and Danda. On bis alarm Mukhram reached there. He was also beaten. On his alarm when the members of his family ran to his rescue the assailants left their bullocks and ran away. The bullock were taken to cattle pond by Mukhram and thereafter he took his father on a cot to the police station, where he lodged the first information report Ext. Kha. 10. 8. Appellant Mukhram has taken the same defence in his statement under Section 313 CrPC except that he has added that he had a Gandasa when he reached the scene of occurrence. He has also stated that Dubri and others used to get this field grazed by cattle and at times they used to harvest his crop of this field forcibly, after he won the case from the court of Commissioner. He stated that he had made reports in the police station on these incidents also. The prosecution examined Dubri PW 1, Ram Dulare PW 4, Khichchar PW 6 and Genda PW 7 as eye witnesses of the occurrence. He stated that he had made reports in the police station on these incidents also. The prosecution examined Dubri PW 1, Ram Dulare PW 4, Khichchar PW 6 and Genda PW 7 as eye witnesses of the occurrence. PW 7 Genda has not supported the prosecution case. He has been declared hostile by the prosecution. The prosecution case, therefore, rests upon the evidence of Dubri, Ram Dulare and Khichchar. Ram Dulare is son of Dubri and Khichchar is his ploughman. Dubri is real brother of deceased Ram Jatan. No independent and impartial witness has been examined by the prosecution in support of its case. Genda, Mithai and Shiv Narain are named witnesses in the first information report lodged by Dubri. Yet Mithai and Shiv Narain have not been examined and Genda has not supported the prosecution. These witnesses are not only interested witnesses but they are inimical to the appellant. There have been series of litigations between appellant Chulhai and PW 1 Dubri with respect to plot no. 1/12 situate in village Bhardun. which ultimately culminated in favour of appellant Chulhai. Ext. Ka. 12 is the copy of the report of Supervisor Kanungo dated 28-12-1972. This shows that Chulhai applied for demarcation of plot no. 1/12 of village Bhardua and the demarcation was done by the Supervisor Kanungo under the orders of Sub Divisional Magistrate Chakia district Varanasi. Ext. Kha. 13 is the copy of objection filed by Dubri on 20-2-1973 in case no. 13 of 1973 i.e. the said demarcation case. In this objection, Dubri claimed to be in possession of plot no. 1/12 of village Bhardua and alleged that Chulhai had nothing to do with that plot and prayed that the entry in the name of Chulhai be struck off. Ext. Kha. 14 is the copy of order of Sub-Divisional Officer Chakia district Varanasi in case no. 13 of 1973 i.e. the said demarcation case. The Sub-divisional Officer, by this order confirmed the demarcation made by the Supervisor Kanungo. Ext. Kha 15 is the copy of order dated 25th July 1974 passed by Additional Commissioner Varanasi Division in Appeal No. 33 of 1972-73 This appeal was preferred by Dubri against the order of demarcation by Sub-divisional Officer, Chakia. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 25-7-1974. Ext. Kha. Ext. Kha 15 is the copy of order dated 25th July 1974 passed by Additional Commissioner Varanasi Division in Appeal No. 33 of 1972-73 This appeal was preferred by Dubri against the order of demarcation by Sub-divisional Officer, Chakia. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 25-7-1974. Ext. Kha. 16 is the copy of complaint filed by Mukhram son of Chulhai against Dubri alleging that the boundary stores that were fixed at the time of demarcation of plot no. 1/12 were removed by Dubri on 8-2-1973. On application of Mukhram to Sub-divisional Officer Chakia police sub-Inspector of police station Naugarh, fixed them again on 4-3-1973, since then Dubri has been threatening Mukhram to kill him. Ext. Kha. 19 is Jotbhai showing that plot no 1/12 of village Bhardua is owned and possessed by Chulhai. Ext. Kha. 5 to Kha. 9 are the carbon copies of first information reports made by Chulhai or his son Mukhram, between September 1973 to October 1975 against Dubri and his brother for their interference in his possession over plot no. 1/12 of village Bhardua These documents shows that Dubri and his brother were very much interested in taking possession over plot no. 1/12 of Bhardua. This led to proceedings under Section 107, CrPC between the parties. Thus it is clear that there was long drawn enmity between appellant Chulhai and his family members and PW 1 Dubri and his family members. 9. We have, therefore, to approach the evidence of these witnesses with very great caution because they are undoubtedly interested in the case against the appellants. PW 1 Dubri has stated that his plot No. 1/14 is situate in village Atarwa and adjacent to this plot of Dubri lies plot no. 1/12 of Chulhai to the south. 10. There is no evidence on record that the appellants ever tried to take the possession of plot no. 1/14 belonging to Dubri. Dubri has stated that he had filed complaint against appellant Chulhai with respect to plot no. 1/14 of village Atarwa but there is no document on the record in support of his statement. Document on record shows that the litigations were only with respect to plot no. 1/12 of village Bhardua i.e. the plot of appellants. There appears to be no earthly reason for the appellants to go on the plot for which they have no motive and absolutely no concern. Document on record shows that the litigations were only with respect to plot no. 1/12 of village Bhardua i.e. the plot of appellants. There appears to be no earthly reason for the appellants to go on the plot for which they have no motive and absolutely no concern. In all probability, it appears that Dubri and others went in the field of Chulhai to upturn the paddy seeds that Chulhai had sown a day before. There is motive to do it as they have been asserting their possession on the plot and were litigating for that. It is admitted by PW 1 Dubri, Ram Dulare PW 4 and Khichchar PW 6 that paddy seeds were sown in plot no. 1/12 by Chulhai. Khichchar PW 6 has stated that plot of Dubri was ploughed ten or twelve days before the occurrence. He has also stated that Us khet me chitkua dhan bona tha. Meri taraf chitkua dhan pani lagakar chhinla jata hai. Jhagra wale din Dubri ka khet Sukha hi jota ja raha tha. 11. The above statement of the witness shows that there was no need to plough plot no. 1/14 of village Atarwa without having watered that field. This circumstance belies that Dubri and others were to plough their field and Cnulhai and others objected to it. PW 1 Dubri has stated that a Machan was fixed in field no. 1/12 belonging to Chulhai. A Machan is fixed in field for the man to sit and rest, who watches the field. The defence assertion that Chulhai slept on the field watching the same finds support from the fact that Machan was there for him to sit and rest. 12. The factum of Marpit is admitted by the parties. Both sides admit that on 14-7-1976 sometime after sun rise there took place the Marpit between the parties. Appellant Chulhai and Mukhram have also been medically examined by Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta, Medical Officer Incharge Public Health Centre, Naugarh, Varanasi. He examined the injuries of both the parties. The injuries of Mukhram and Chulhai are detailed in Ext. Kha. 1 and Kha. 2. PW 1 Dubri has stated that he did not see injuries on any of the accused. He has further stated that no body had a sharp edged or sharp pointed weapon on his side. He deposed that he saw Ram Jatan wielding Danda in self defence. Kha. 1 and Kha. 2. PW 1 Dubri has stated that he did not see injuries on any of the accused. He has further stated that no body had a sharp edged or sharp pointed weapon on his side. He deposed that he saw Ram Jatan wielding Danda in self defence. Ram Jatan wielded Danda once or so. Ram Jatan had a thin Danda which was two or three cubits in length. PW 4 Ram Dulare has stated that he saw injuries only on Chulhai. PW 6 Khichchar has deposed that he saw injuries of Chulhai and he also saw blood stains on the clothes of Chulhai. He has stated that except Ram Jatan every body else of the prosecution side was empty handed. He has stated that he did not tell the investigating officer that Ram Jatan wielded Danda once or so. PW 8 Raj Bahadur Singh, the investigating officer has proved the statement of Khichchar Ext. Kha. 4, wherein Khichchar stated that Ram Jatan wielded his Danda once or so. Thus from the statements of these witnesses, it is obvious that the injuries of the appellants have not been properly explained. Mukhram has received as many as four injuries and Chulhai has also received four injuries including a lacerated wound on the frontal region of the skull and a punctured wound. These injuries are not likely to be caused by the thin stick of Ram Jatan which was wielded by him only once or so. This leads to the conclusion that the witnesses are not telling truth about the part played by persons on their side. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assume much greater importance, where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. There may be cases where the non explanation of the injuries of accused by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This principle may apply where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and impartial, so probable and consistent and credit worthy that it far out weighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. It may also apply where the injuries on the side of the accused are very superficial. This principle may apply where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and impartial, so probable and consistent and credit worthy that it far out weighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. It may also apply where the injuries on the side of the accused are very superficial. In the instant case the puncutred wound and the lacerated wound on the skull suffered by Chulhai cannot be termed as superficial. This omission on the part of the prosecution witnesses in this case leads to the inference that the witnesses are not telling the truth and they are suppressing the origin of this Marpit. Raj Bahadur Singh, PW 8, the investigating officer has denied that the seed of plot no. l/l2 was upturned as is the defence case. PW 6 Khichchar has stated that on the day of occurrence it rained in the evening and also rained in the night and the next morning PW 8 Raj Bahadur Singh investigating officer has also stated that it rained in the night before he reached the scene of the occurrence. He reached the scene of the occurrence on 15-7-1976. It was raining when he reached the scene of the occurrence. The investigating officer has further stated that he searched for the blood in the paddy seeds of the field of Mukhram but could not find any blood because it had rained very heavily till then. This also explains as to why the investigating officer could not find any sign of the seeds of plot no. 1/12 being upturned. The bullock were taken to the cattle pond by Mukhram, is admitted by both the parties. According to Mukhram he took nine bullocks to the cattle pond while according to Dubri only four bullocks were taken by him. The fact that Mukhram took the bullocks to the cattle pond all along upto Vishesharpur makes us to believe that he would not spare the plough and the yoke to remain on the field only to be taken in possession by the investigating officer the next day. The investigating officer had recovered a spear, a Gandasa and a lathi from a pauddar near the house of the appellant and this had led the trial judge to hold that the appellants were aggressor. The investigating officer had recovered a spear, a Gandasa and a lathi from a pauddar near the house of the appellant and this had led the trial judge to hold that the appellants were aggressor. No presumption could be drawn against the appellants on the basis of this recovery unless the weapon recovered were proved by definite evidence that they belonged to the appellants. Even if it is accepted that these weapons belonged to the appellants and that they used them in this Marpit no inference can be drawn adverse to the appellants as they acted in their right of private defence. The law of self defence does not expect citizens to be coward when faced with iminent danger to their property and person. There is nothing more degrading to the human spirit than to run away in face of danger. The documents filed by the defence show that the prosecution side has continuously been attempting to take the possession over plot no. 1/12 by force and we have earlier found that the incident in all probability took place on plot no. 1/12. 13. Large number of injuries and their serious nature at times does help in rinding out the aggressor but when the circumstances clearly point out that the sufferer of such injuries were themselves aggressors, the number and nature of injuries becomes immaterial because the person acting in self defence is not expected to weigh the blow in golden scales. 14. Thus in our view the interested and inimical nature of the evidence, non explanation of the injuries of the appellants, and the very fact that the defence version was given out at such an early stage and that it has to such a large extent been corroborated by circumstances are strong reasons for thinking that the defence case is very likely to be true. The prosecution has, therefore, failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, the appeal of others except the dead appellant Chulhai succeeds and is allowed. The convictions and the sentences awarded to the appellants are hereby set aside. They are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Chulhai's appeal has abated. Appeal allowed.