JUDGMENT : The appellants who were variously charged for murder and other ancillary offences have been convicted and suitably sentenced. Appellant Deo Narayan Rai has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and other appellant under section 302/149 of the Penal Code. Appellant Ram Nandan Rai has also been convicted under section 307 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act, Other appellants except Ram Nandan Rai have been convicted under section. 147 of the Indian Penal Code). 2. In an occurrence taking place on 13.12.1976 at village Narhi, P.S. Sahar in the district of Bhojpur one Ramjanam Rai was killed and one Jwala Rai sustained gun hot injury. According to the prosecution when the resident of village Narhi came to know about the assault upon Ram janam Rai and Jwala Rai they assembled and some of the members or he accused party sustained injuries at their hands in which two persons namely, Pradip Rai and Rajendra Rai were killed and some sustained injury. According to the defence Pradip Rai and Rajendra Rai, were killed in the same occurrence and some of the members of the accused party sustained injuries at the hands of the member of the Prosecution party. 3. About 5 bighas of land which were divided in sub plots were claimed by the informant Nathuni Rai (P.W. 10) and others on the basis of inheritance from the recorded tenants. The record of right recognized appellant Deo Narain Rai and Baliraj Rai (since deceased) as tenants. Proceeding under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was started and disposed of restraining the informant party. But a fresh proceeding under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was started on the basis of a police report and both parties were restrained and notice to the said effect, according to the persecution, were served upon them on 29.11. 1975. On some of the disputed plots paddy crop was grown which was ripe for harvesting. On 13.12.1976, according to the prosecution, appellants and other including Pradip Rai and Rajendra Rai, were getting the paddy harvested through 20-25 labourers. Since the paddy crop was grown by the informant and others the informant approached one Ramjanam Rai, a respectable person of the village for exercising his influance to stop the accused persons from harvesting the paddy. On 13.12.1976, according to the prosecution, appellants and other including Pradip Rai and Rajendra Rai, were getting the paddy harvested through 20-25 labourers. Since the paddy crop was grown by the informant and others the informant approached one Ramjanam Rai, a respectable person of the village for exercising his influance to stop the accused persons from harvesting the paddy. Ramjanam Rai came on the field and asked the accused persons to desist from harvesting. The accused persons, however, insisted as alleged, appellant Ram Narain, Rai ordered and Pradip Rai gave a Halo. blow on the stomach of Rajendra Rai. Appellant Deo Narayan Rai thereafter struck on the head of Ramjanam Rai 3-4 times with Khanti. Appellant Ram Nanden Rai fired a shot with country made pistol upon Jwala Rai (P.W. 7) and caused several pellet injury on him. After committing the assault the accused persons started fleeing towards north. Enraged by the killing of Ramjanam Rai who was a respectable person of the village several villagers pounced upon the accused persons and in the ensuing fight Pradip Rai and Rajendra, Rai were killed. Information about the Occurrence was given by the informant (P.W.10) at Sahar Police Station at 7 P.M. only about two to three hours after the occurrence. But the Sub-Inspector of Police Shayam Bihari Prasad (since dead) was in collusion with the defence and so he did not mention the name of Bishwanath Singh (the brother-in-law of the informant Deo Narayan Singh, appellant of the counter case). This gave rise to a protest petition. 4 According to the counter version no notice of any fresh proceeding under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was served upon any of the appellants. The prosecution party was harvesting the paddy crop for which the appellants forbade. The members of the prosecution party including the informant then started assaulting the members of the defence party and killed Pradip Rai and Rajendra Rai and caused injuries to several other persons. A copy of the first information report in the counter case has been produced and proved (Ext. D). The post mortem examination report held on the dead bodies of Pradip Rai and Rajerdra Rai have also been produced (Exts. A and A/A). The injury reports on the side of the defence are Exts. B to B/B). A copy of the first information report in the counter case has been produced and proved (Ext. D). The post mortem examination report held on the dead bodies of Pradip Rai and Rajerdra Rai have also been produced (Exts. A and A/A). The injury reports on the side of the defence are Exts. B to B/B). P. W. 9 who has been examined by the prosecution as the Medical Officer to prove the post mortem examination report was cross-examined by the defence about the injuries upon the accused persons. By this defence has demonstrated that several member of the accused party received injuries at about the time of the occurrence and have tried to suggest that two members of their party were killed in the occurrence by the members of the prosecution party. Of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution P. Ws. 11. 12 and 14 are formal witnesses. P. W. 9 is the Medical Officer and P.W. 13 is the Officer in-charge who has taken over investigation of the case from A.S.I. Shyam Bihari Prasad after the death. P.W. 8 was tendered for cross-examination. Corroborative evidence about the occnrrence has been provided by P. W. 10, the informant, and P. Ws. 1,2,3 and 7. P.Ws 5 and 6 are only hearsay witnesses about the occurrence. 6. There appears little doubt about the Occurrence and assault upon Ramjanam Rai in the occurrence due to which assault he died There also appears little doubt about the effect that Pradip Rai and Rajendra Rai were killed at about the time of the Occurrence and several persons on the side of the accused sustained injury at about the same time. It is well settled that if the accused is able to make it probable that the accused persons sustained injuries in the same occurrence and injuries caused to them were serious the prosecution is required to explain the injuries on the accused. If no explanation is given to the injuries upon the accused by the prosecution, then doubts arise and the Court invariably find that either the genesis of the occurrence is suppressed or the manner of the occurrence is suppressed. The courts also find that the prosecution has not disclosed the whole truth and that most likely the Occurrence has taken place as shown by the defence. The courts also find that the prosecution has not disclosed the whole truth and that most likely the Occurrence has taken place as shown by the defence. In the instant case however, the prosecution has come forward with a definite case that the accused persons accused Ramjanam Rai as a result of which he died and P.W. 7 was also assaulted in the same occurrence and sustained injuries. Since there is no serious challenge to this aspect of the case and the finding of the learned Sessions Judge in this regard is not questioned by the learned counsel for the appellants this finding is not touched. I take it that the prosecution has been, if its evidence is accepted, able to prove the case that Ramjanam Rai was assaulted and murdered at the hands of the appellants in the manner alleged by the prosecution. The main contention, however, has centered round the case of the prosecution that Pradip Rai and Rajendra Rai were assaulted and killed by the villager who 'arrived after the accused persons assaulted Ramjanam Rai and some of the accused persons also sustained injuries at their hands. This version of the prosecution, if true, shall furnish explanation to the defence plea of injuries caused by the prosecution to the accused in the same occurrence. The counter case in which allegation were levelled against the informant and others by appellant Ram Narayan Rai as the informant for the murder of Pradip Rai and Rajendra Rai has ended in acquittal. The case of the defence, which in the counter case was the prosecution version was not accepted by the learned Sessions Judge and on finding that Pradip Rai and Rajendra Rai and others could have been assaulted by the villagers who arrived after they learnt that Ramjanam Rai had been assaulted by the accused persons, be extended the benefit of a reasonable doubt to the informant and others who were accused in the said case. 7 Section 43 of the Evidence Act, says that all judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in section 40, 41 and 43 are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment order or decree, is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provision of the Act, Appellants who were neither the prosecutor nor the accused in the counter case cannot be described a party to the said case. None of the provisions contained in Section 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act, can be applied to a counter case about the Occurrence and a judgment in the counter case cannot be allowed to be used for the purposes envisaged therein The judgment in the counter case in which the appellants were not on trial cannot prevent the court from taking cognizance of the offence alleged against them. It cannot also be used to effect the legal character or the rights of the state to prosecute and the accused, to defend Such a judgment cannot also be described as one relating to the matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry" In terms of Section 43 of the Evidence Act, the only use to which the judgment in the counter case can be put is that the informant and others have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 10 absence of any fact suggesting relevancy of anything contained therein under any other provision of the Evidence Act, no further use of the judgment is possible. Courts have taken notice of the admissions, evidence of conduct, or evidence as to right or custom recognised in a previous judgment as a relevant fact in the subsequent proceeding or trial because .under one or the other provision of the Evidence Act, they are made admissible. In the case of Mitthulal and another Vs. The state of Madhya Pradesh Bhogwati, J. speaking for the Supreme Court has pointed out: "It is difficult to comprehend as to how the High Court could decide the appeal before it by taking into account evidence recorded in another case, even though it might be what is loosely called a cross-case. It is elementary that each case must be decided on the evidence recorded in it and evidence recorded in another case cannot be taken into account in arriving at the decision. Even 'in civil Cases this cannot be Gone unless the parties are agreed that the evidence in one case may be treated as evidence in the other. Much more so in criminal case would this be impermissible. Even 'in civil Cases this cannot be Gone unless the parties are agreed that the evidence in one case may be treated as evidence in the other. Much more so in criminal case would this be impermissible. It is doubtful whether the evidence recorded in one criminal case can be treated as evidence in the other, even with the consent of the accused, But here there was clearly no consent of the' appellants to treat the evidence recorded in the crass-case against Ganpat and Rajdhar as evidence in the case against them. The High Court was, therefore, clearly in error in taking into consideration the evidence recorded in the cross-case against Ganpat and Rajdhar. The High Court ought to have decided the appeal before it only on the basis of the evidence recorded in the present case and ought not to have allowed itself to be influenced by the evidence recorded in the cross-case against' Ganpat and Rajdhar". The law, stated in no ambiguous words makes the use of evidence in the counter Case impermissible. The evidence as under stood in terms of the provisions of the Evidence Act, is always statement of a fact in relation to the fact under enquiry Inference from proved facts are also facts, which will require only a logical extension. Therefore, of the law stated by the Supreme Court in Mitthulal (supra) to include the fact recorded by way of inferences from the facts proved in the case to be learned as evidence and thus evidence in the counter case. Although no case distinctly laying down the principle have been brought to Our notice, I am a respectful agreement with the view by P. K. Mohanti, J. in the case of Ram Chandra vs Gadadhar Mahopatra who has considered the question of admissibility of a previous judgment in a case not interparty with reference to Section 13 of the Evidence Act, has said: "A judgment in the previous suit though not conclusive is admissible in evidence like any other fact to be weighed in the balance. It is not the correctness of the previous decision but the fact that there has been a previous decision that is established by the judgment. The finding of the fact arrived at on the evidence in one case cannot be evidence of that fact in another case. " 8. It is not the correctness of the previous decision but the fact that there has been a previous decision that is established by the judgment. The finding of the fact arrived at on the evidence in one case cannot be evidence of that fact in another case. " 8. Having come to the above conclusion when I advert to the facts of the case it has to be seen whether the prosecution has given a true explanation to the injuries and death on the side of the accused or not, the law that the prosecution is required to explain the injuries and it failed to do so inferences adverse to the prosecution are drawn shall in may view apply with equal force to a case in which explanations are furnished by the prosecution but ale not proved and/or remain somewhere in the realm of doubt. False explanation can stand no better to know explanation, but it is not always necessary to find that the explanations furnished by the prosecution are false. In my view, it shall be enough to extend benefit of reasonable doubt to the defence if it is found that the prosecution's explanations do not completely make the defence version improbable. The case that the accused party was assaulted by the villagers, who arrived after coming to know that Ramjanam Rai was assaulted by the accused persons, is stated by the prosecution witnesses for the first time in the court. There is no mention in. the first information report about assault upon the accused persons by the villagers. Witnesses in their statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have stated that there was a mutual Marpit between the members of the prosecution party and the members of the defence party (except P.W.1) which statements arc wholly inconsistent with their statements in the court that after the assault upon Ramjanam Rai villagers arrived and they assaulted the members of the accused party. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 who have furnished the said explanation besides the informant (P. W. 10) thus have, by not stating the said fact before the Police, have m'-\de their testimonies infirm. P. W. 1 has no doubt, not been contradicted about this statement in the court, but words used by him give an impression that those who arrived were engaged in fight by the accused persons. P. W. 1 has no doubt, not been contradicted about this statement in the court, but words used by him give an impression that those who arrived were engaged in fight by the accused persons. It is somewhat Strange that the accused person who were heavily armed according to the prosecution sustained injuries at' the hands of the villagers and two of them died at the spot, but none of those who attacked them got any injury whatsoever. It is difficult on such state of evidence to accept the explanation of the injuries up- on the accused party furnished by the prosecution. I am not dilating into other aspects of the case in respect of which also a lot has been said on behalf of the appellants as also on behalf of the State. The learned Sessions judge has found that the defence version about the title and ownership of the bud in dispute is mare acceptable than the version of the prosecution about it and while the members of the accused party could go upon the land in question with their, success in the proceeding under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there was not impediment in their exercising right pf possession upon the land (in absence of the notice of the second proceeding), the prosecution party knowing fully that there was an order of restrain prohibiting the parties from going upon the land could not go for any purpose. I do not say one way or the other about is only because I have no hesitation in holding that the defence has made its case probable that the accused persons received injuries in the same occurrence and the injuries were serious inasmuch as two members of their party died due to the injuries and the prosecution has failed to satisfactorily explain the injuries upon the accused. 9 To conclude in my view appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt, they are accordingly acquitted of the charges leveled against them and they are discharged from liability of their bail bonds. Appeal allowed.