JUDGMENT S.I. Jafri, J. - Sheonath Singh, Latooir Singh, Kishori Singh, Harkaran Singh and Nathoo Singh have filed this appeal against their conviction and sentence recorded by Sri Arjan Dev, III Addl. Sessions Judge, Moradabad, by bis judgment and order dated 31-3-1978 in sessions trial No. A-276 of 1974. Sheonath Singh and Latoor Singh Appellants were convicted under Sections 148 IPC, 302/149 IPC, 324/149 IPC, 325/149 IPC and 323/149 IPC and they were sentenced to undergo 2 years, life imprisonment, 2 years RI, 4 years RI and 6 months RI respectively. Kishore Singh and Nathoo Singh were convicted under Sections 147 IPC, 302/149 IPC and 324/149 IPC and were sentenced to undergo to one year's R.I., life imprisonment, four years RI and 6 months RI respectively. Co-accused Zora Singh, Karan Singh, Harkesh, Kaley Singh, Sallu Singh, Jhaoo Singh and Chhotey Singh were also tried along with the Appellants but they were acquitted by the trial Court. 2. Out of the aforesaid accused persons Sheo Nath Singh, Latoor Singh, Sallu Singh and Karan Singh were armed with guns whereas Harkaran Singh, Jhaoo Singh and Chhotey Singh were said to have been armed with Tabal and the remaining accused were armed with lathis. The Appellants belonged to village Rahupura-Ghosipura, P.S Bhagatpura, District Moradabad. The complainant also lived in the same village. The Appellants are collaterals which is clear from the pedigree given below: * * * * 3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 24th August, 1973 at about 5 P.M. Genda Singh PW 4 was at his Chari and Urd field situated at a distance of about a mile from his village and at that time four she buffaloes belonging to Nathu Singh Appellant, were grazing the crop of Genda Singh and Nathu Singh was standing nearby. Genda Singh took exception to the act of Nathu Singh and protested whereupon an altercation took place and Nathu Singh left the field threatening him to give lesson and went towards his village. The case of the prosecution further is that after about an hour, Genda Singh drove the aforesaid four buffaloes towards his village in order to take them to the cattle pond. When he reached in front of the house of Jhaoo Singh at about 5 PM. all the 12 accused named above who were standing near the house of Jhaoo Singh surrounded him and started beating him. When he reached in front of the house of Jhaoo Singh at about 5 PM. all the 12 accused named above who were standing near the house of Jhaoo Singh surrounded him and started beating him. On the alarm raised by Genda Singh, his son Roshan Singh (deceased) Vikram Singh, Sardar Singh, Chhida PW 5, Ram Chandr PW 3, Sukhram, Zafar, Rupa, Hem Raj Singh reached there to save him, whereupon the accused also caused injuries to them. 4. In this assault Genda Singh PW 4, Ram Chandra PW 3, Roshan, Vikram and Brijendra had received injuries. Roshan Singh had become unconscious on receiving the injuries. The accused after causing injuries and snatching the cattle had run away from the place of occurrence and Genda Singh along with the injured persons came to his house. Shortly, thereafter, Ram Bux Singh PW 2 the brother of Genda Singh returned from the jungle at the house of Genda Singh and he after ascertaining the facts of the occurrence from the injured left for the police station for lodging the FIR but he came back to his house apprehending danger from the side of the accused who had blocked the way to the police station. The injured remained in the house of the complainant without any medical aid during the night. Next morning Ram Bux Singh took all the injured to Moradabad by train and while going on rickshaw in the City of Moradabad to police station Kotwali for lodging the report, he got the report of the occurrence typed by a typist on a shop on the way at Ghurhatti crossing and, thereafter, he reached the police station Kotwali where he handed over the report at 11.05 A.M. to the police costable Jai Narain PW 6 who prepared the chik report and also registered a case u/s 307/147 IPC against all the 12 accused. The injured were sent from the P.S. Kotwali to the District Hospital, Moradabad where they were examined between 11.30 A.M. and 12.45 P.M. All the injured except Genda Singh were, examined by Dr. Kuldeep Sagar. The injuries of Genda Singh were examined by Dr. K.S. Dong at the District Hospital. The doctor found the following injuries on the person of Genda Singh PW 4: (1) A wound (incised) 1" x 1/10" x muscle deep on the Rt. side of forehead 1/2" above the Rt. eye brow. Kuldeep Sagar. The injuries of Genda Singh were examined by Dr. K.S. Dong at the District Hospital. The doctor found the following injuries on the person of Genda Singh PW 4: (1) A wound (incised) 1" x 1/10" x muscle deep on the Rt. side of forehead 1/2" above the Rt. eye brow. (2) A Contusion 3" x 3-1/2" on the back of Rt. palm extending from the wrist joint to root of fingers. (3) A Contusion 2-1/2" x 2" on the back of Rt. fore-arm on the lower 1/4 part underlying bone suspected to fractured. (4) A Contusion 2 1/2" x 2" on the back of left forearm in the lower 1/4 area underlying bone suspected to be fractured. (5) Multiple gun shot wounds each 1/8" in Diameter in an area of 6" x 4" on the left buttock. Margin lacerated and inverted. No blackening and scorching present. The wounds are skin and muscle deep would of entrance. (6) Multiple gun shot wounds 1/8" in diameter x skin and muscle deep in an area of 4" x 4" on the Rt. buttock. Margins, lacerated. No blackening and scorching present. 5. The condition of Roshan Singh continued to be serious and he did not regain consciousness in the District Hospital, Moradabad and consequently he was shifted from the District Hospital, Moradabad to Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi where he was admitted on 27-8-73 at 6 P.M. Roshan Singh succumbed to his injuries in the hospital on 4-9-73 at 7.45 A.M. 6. Dr. S.D. Mukhia, Medical Officer of Safdarjang Hospital conducted the autopsy on the deed body of Roshan Singh on 6-9-73 and found the following injuries on his person: (1) Stitched wound scalp Rt. parietal area 2" long. (2) Lacerated wound tip of left little finger. (3) Multiple rounded healing wound on the back of Rt. index finger all over and base of Rt. Middle finger. The diameter of injuries is 2/10" to 3/10". The cust is deposited on the wounds On cutting these wounds four pellets were recovered in soft tissue which were preserved and (paper torn) for further investigation. There is no fracture 2nd Metacarpel bone or any other bone (paper torn) wound. (4) Stitched wound over left skin (paper torn) upper 1/3 size 1" x bone deep with fracture of both leg bones below the injury (paper torned). There is no fracture 2nd Metacarpel bone or any other bone (paper torn) wound. (4) Stitched wound over left skin (paper torn) upper 1/3 size 1" x bone deep with fracture of both leg bones below the injury (paper torned). On reflecting the scalp three (paper torned) on the top of scalp standing on both (paper torned) parital area. Skull bone (1) Three fissured fracture of (paper torned) rt. thumb extending to right parietal (paper torn) parietal and left temporal bone (paper torned) extra dural (paper torned). Brain surface is bruised on rt. cerebral hemisphere. Neck tissue normal. Trachea normal. Hyoid bone normal, Chest wall normal. Heart N.A.D. Lungs NAB. Liver N.A.D. Spleen, Kidneys N.A.D. Stomach Empty normal. Intestine distended with gases and faecal matter. Rectum bladder empty. Injuries on hand (3) are possible by firearm. Other injuries by blunt object. 7. According to the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was due to intra-cranial Haemorrhage. 8. Nathu Singh Appellant lodged the report Ex. Kha-2 at the Police Station Bhagatpura at 12.20 P.M. on 25-8-73. On the basis of the report, Mahabir Singh PW 1 prepared the chik report and also registered a case u/s 323/147/148 IPC against 9 persons including Genda Singh PW 4, Ram Chander PW 3 and Roshan Singh deceased. He also sent Latoor Singh, Har Karan, Smt. Sukhdei, Narain Singh, Kishore Singh and Chhatrapal Singh for medical examination. Dr. Kuldip Sagar examined the injuries of Latoor Singh and others between 4.40 to 6.30 P.M. on 25-1-78. The injury reports are Exts. Kha-4 to Kha-8. Injuries of Latoor Singh are as under : (1) Incised wound 2-1/2" x 1/2" x bone deep on the right side of parietal area 5" above the right ear. (2) Incised wound 1" x 1/4" below the elbow joint. It was surrounded by swelling 2-1/2" x 2-1/2" around it. (3) Contusion 2-1/2" x 3/4" on the upper part of the left shoulder. Injuries No. 1 and 2 were kept under observation by the doctor. Injury No. 3 was simple. Injuries No. 1 and 2 were caused by some sharp pointed weapon like Ballam and injury No. 3 was caused by some blunt weapon. On the person of Har Karan the doctor found the following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound 2" x 1/2" x bone deep on the right parietal area of the skull 3" above the right ear. 2. Injuries No. 1 and 2 were caused by some sharp pointed weapon like Ballam and injury No. 3 was caused by some blunt weapon. On the person of Har Karan the doctor found the following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound 2" x 1/2" x bone deep on the right parietal area of the skull 3" above the right ear. 2. Contusion 10" x 1/2" on the upper part of the back covering both sides. 3. Contusion 5" x 3/4'' on the lower part of the left scapula region. 4. Complained of pain in left arm but there was no visible mark of injury. The doctor kept injury No. 1 under observation Rest of the injuries were simple. All the injuries were caused by some blunt weapon like lathi or Danda. On the person of Smt. Sukh Dei the doctor found the following injuries: (1) Contusion 3" x 2-3/4" on the back of the left palm. (2) Contusion 2-1/2" x 2-1/2" on the back of the left elbow joint. Both the injuries were simple and were caused by some blunt weapon. On the person of Narain Singh the doctor found the following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound 1-1/2" x 1/4" x bone deep on the right parietal area of skull 2-3/4" above the right ear. 2. Incised wound 3" x 1/4" x bone deep on the front middle part of the right leg. 3. Incised wound 1" x 1/4" x skin deep on the front upper quarter part of the left leg. 4. Traumatic swelling 5" x 4" on the right shoulder joint. The doctor kept injury No. 1 under observation. Rest of the injuries were simple. Injury No. 1 and 4 were caused by some blunt weapon and injuries No. 2 and 3 were caused by some sharp edged weapon. On the person of Kishori Singh the doctor found the following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound 2" x 1/4" x bone deep on the upper part of the head in the middle. 2. Lacerated wound 1" x 2/10" x bone deep on the back of head 2-1/2" behind injury No. 1. 3. Incised wound 3/4" x 1/2" x muscle deep on the back of the left forearm 3-1/4" above the wrist joint. 4. Incised wound 3/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep on the back of the left fore-arm 3" above the injury No. 3. 5. 3. Incised wound 3/4" x 1/2" x muscle deep on the back of the left forearm 3-1/4" above the wrist joint. 4. Incised wound 3/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep on the back of the left fore-arm 3" above the injury No. 3. 5. Traumatic swelling 3" x 3" on the back of the lower part of the elbow joint. Injury No. 5 was kept under observation by the doctor. He advised X-ray. The rest of the injuries were simple. Injuries No. 3 and 4 were caused by same sharp edged weapon and the rest were caused by some blunt weapon. On the person of Chhatar Pal Singh the Doctor found the following injuries: 1. An incised wound 2-1/4" x 1/4" bone deep on the back upper part of the head covering both sides. 2. Abraded contusion 1-1/2" x 3/4" on the upper part of the left shoulder joint. 3. The patient complained of pain in right forearm though there was no visible injury. After completing the investigation Chandra Pal Singh PW 7 submitted the charge sheet against the accused. He had also submitted charge sheet in the cross case against Genda Singh PW 4, Sunder, Vikram, Bhoop Singh and Munshi Singh. 9. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. However, the defence version was given by Har Karan and Jhaoo Singh accused. Har Karan stated that on the day of occurrence at about 5 P.M. he saw Bhoop Singh grazing his two buffaloes in his field in which there stood the crop of Chari and Urd. He rebuked him whereupon a scuffle took place between them. Chhotey Singh and Roshan Singh intervened them and thereafter he came back to his home. He further stated that in the same evening at 6 p.m. when he was taking out Bhusa from his Bongas, Genda Singh came there with 8 other persons and they started beating Nathu Singh who was sitting in his house. Genda Singh was accompanied with Sardar Singh, Vikram Singh, Attar Singh, Ram Chander, Bhup Singh, Munshi Singh, Man Singh and Roshan (deceased) and out of them Munshi Singh, was armed with gun, Bhup Singh and Man Singh with tamanchas, Sardar Singh and Vikram Singh were armed with Spears and the rest with lathis. Genda Singh was accompanied with Sardar Singh, Vikram Singh, Attar Singh, Ram Chander, Bhup Singh, Munshi Singh, Man Singh and Roshan (deceased) and out of them Munshi Singh, was armed with gun, Bhup Singh and Man Singh with tamanchas, Sardar Singh and Vikram Singh were armed with Spears and the rest with lathis. The assailants had assaulted Latoor Singh, Har Karan and Smt. Sukh Dei and on their raising alart Narain Singh, Kishori Singh and Chhatar Pal Singh reached there to save them but they were also beaten by the assailants. Chhatar Pal Singh ran away and brought his gun and he fired two shots resulting injuries to Narain Singh, Smt. Sukh Dei, Chhatar Pal Singh, Kishori Singh and Latoor Singh received injuries. 10. The prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses in support of its case and out of them Ram Chandra PW 3, Genda Singh PW 4 and Chhida PW 5 were examined as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Ram Bux Singh PW 2 is not an eye-witness of the occurrence. He had lodged the report of the occurrence at the police station on the basis of the information gathered regarding the occurrence from his brother Genda Singh PW 4 and other witnesses on his return from the jungle shortly after the occurrence at his house. 11. Genda Singh PW 4 has narrated the entire occurrence in detail. He has deposed that on the day of occurrence at about 5 p.m. he was at his Chari and Urd field situated at a distance of about a mile from his village and he found four she buffaloes belonging to Nathu Singh grazing his crop in the said field. At that time Nathu Singh accused was standing near by. On his protest, an altercation took place between him and Nathu Singh and thereupon he had detained the cattle there and Nathu Singh left the field threatening him to give a lesson. Thereafter, at about 6 P.M. when he was going through his village along with the cattle for impounding them in the cattel pond and when he reached in front the house of Jhaoo Singh, all the 12 accused persons surrounded him and started beating him. Thereafter, at about 6 P.M. when he was going through his village along with the cattle for impounding them in the cattel pond and when he reached in front the house of Jhaoo Singh, all the 12 accused persons surrounded him and started beating him. On the alarm raised by him, his son Roshan Singh, Vikram, Sunder Singh and his grand son Vijender Singh, Chhida PW 5, Zafar, Roopa, Hem Raj, Bhoop Singh, Ram Chandra PW 3 arrived there and they had plied with their dandis to save him but the accused after causing injuries to him, Vikram, Vijendra and Roshan Singh had run away from the place of occurrence. Roshan Singh became unconscious on account of the injuries. He further stated that he took the injured at his house from the place of occurrence and shortly thereafter, his brother Ram Bux Siugh PW 2 returned to his house from his field. He narrated the occurrence to Ram Bux Singh who thereafter left the house for going to the police station for lodging the FIR but he came back to his house apprehending the danger from the hands of the accused persons as they had blocked the passage of the village for going to the police station. He further deposed that the next morning he and other injured were taken by Ram Bux Singh to Moradabad by train. While going from Railway station Moradabad to Police Station Kotwali Ram Bux Singh got the report of the occurrence typed at a typist shop at Gurhatti crossing and, thereafter, he along with his companions reached the police station Kotwali and there Ram Bux Singh had handed over the typed report of the occurrence to the Head Constable. He further deposed that, thereafter, their injuries were examined in the District Hospital. 12. The evidence of Genda Singh PW 4 is corroborated by the evidence of Ram Chandra PW 3 and Chhida PW 5. It may be noted that admittedly Ram Chandra's father Munshi Singh is the Sarhu of Genda Singh and, therefore, he is not an independent witness. Chhida Singh PW 5 is also a partisan witness as in the case, Zora Singh v. Thakuri, Mohammad Ali, the brother of Chhida PW 5 had appeared as a witness for Thakuri. Admittedly, Zora Singh was an accused along with Nathu Singh and others in this case and he was acquitted by the trial Court. Chhida Singh PW 5 is also a partisan witness as in the case, Zora Singh v. Thakuri, Mohammad Ali, the brother of Chhida PW 5 had appeared as a witness for Thakuri. Admittedly, Zora Singh was an accused along with Nathu Singh and others in this case and he was acquitted by the trial Court. Under the circumstances Chhida PW 5 is also not an independent witness. The occurence had taken place inside the village abadi in broad day light and, therefore, the presence of independent persons is probable at the place of occurrence. In the absence of any plausible explanation for not examining the independent witnesses in support of the prosecution case, a serious doubt is created regarding the correctness of the prosecution version. It is no doubt true that the evidence of partisan witnesses can very well be acted upon for the conviction of the accused but in cases where independent witnesses were present at the place of the occurrence and they were not produced by the prosecution without offering any plausible explanation, the evidence of partisan witnesses must stand the test of reliability for placing implicit reliance on it. However, in cases where injured witnesses are there on the side of the prosecution, it is not always necessary to examine independent witnesses as the presence of injured witnesses cannot be doubted during the occurrence. The evidence of injured witnesses also requires strict scrutiny for placing implicit reliance on it in the absence of independant evidence. However if the injured witnesses are found to be reliable, the non-examination of independent witnesses will not at all affect the prosecution case adversely and implicit reliance can very well be placed for the conviction of the accused without independent corroboration. 13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that the prosecution has not explained the injuries on to be side of the accused in the FIR. It was also submitted by him that Ram Bux Singh complainant has also not at all mentioned about the injuries of six persons on the side of the accused in the first information report. It was also submitted by him that Ram Bux Singh complainant has also not at all mentioned about the injuries of six persons on the side of the accused in the first information report. It is no doubt true that in this case, the first informant Ram Bux Singh PW 2 is not an eye witness of the occurrence, but placing reliance on the testimony of Genda Singh PW 4 who had stated clearly that he had narrated the entire occurrence to his brother Ram Bux Singh PW 2 shortly after the occurrence, the non-explanation of the injuries of the accused in the FIR is a strong circumstance which makes the earlier version of the occurrence subject to great doubt. Under the circumstance, the non-mention of the injuries of the accused in the FIR is an important circumstance in judging the correctness of prosecution evidence. In this case, it is abundantly clear that the prosecution had deliberately suppressed the injuries sustained by the accused not only in the FIR but also in the statement u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procdeure recorded by the Investigation Officer. 14. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on Mitter Sen v. State of U.P. 1976 SC 1156, where the prosecution had led evidence at the trial to explain how the injuries were caused to Appellants No. 2 and 3 and Chandra Prakash. The witnesses examined by the prosecution stated that hearing the noise of the fight, Sajjan Kumar and Laxmi Chand came out of the house with lathis and started assaulting the Appellants and their companions suggesting that the injuries must have been caused to Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 and Chandra Prakash as a result of lathi blows given by Sajjan Kumar and Laxmi Chand. But in the FIR there was no mention of Sajjan Kumar and Laxmi Chand who came out with lathis and assaulted the Appellants and their companions in exercise of private defence of person of complainant Raghubar Dayal and Shyam Lal. It was held that the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses cannot, therefore, be accepted at its face value and relied upon implicitly, for the purpose of conviction of the Appellants. 15. It was held that the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses cannot, therefore, be accepted at its face value and relied upon implicitly, for the purpose of conviction of the Appellants. 15. In the present case undoubtedly from the side of the Appellants, Latoor Singh, Har Karan, Smt. Sukh Dei, Narain Singh, Kishori Singh and Chhatra Pal have received a number of injuries caused by sharp edged and blunt weapons causing incised wounds, contusions and abrasions. These injuries were examined in the District Hospital by the doctor who had also examined the injuries on the side of complainant. The injuries on the side of the accused cannot be held to be fabricated or self inflicted, in view of the serious nature of injuries. Under the circumstance, the non-mention of the injuries of the accused in the FIR and also in the statement recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procdeure has created a lot of suspicion regarding the version given by the witnesses before the trial Court where the witnesses have offered explanation regarding the injuries of the accused. The first information report is a very valuable document which discloses the earlier version of the occurrence given by the complainant and the evidence of the witnesses given before the trial Court gets ample corroboration by it. Consequently, in the absence of the explanation of the injuries in the FIR and also in the statement u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procdeure the origin of right in the present case has become shrouded with mystry and, therefore, it is difficult to hold that the accused were the aggressors. The contention of the Appellants that they had exercised the right of private defence is not without substance and under the circumstance the possibility that the accused had exercised the right of private defence in causing injuries to the complainant side cannot be ruled out. 16. The contention of the Appellants that they had exercised the right of private defence is not without substance and under the circumstance the possibility that the accused had exercised the right of private defence in causing injuries to the complainant side cannot be ruled out. 16. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the prosecution version is also highly improbable as the version given by Genda Singh is subject to great doubt as according to the prosecution case, Genda Singh is said to have detained 4 she-buffaloes single handed in his field and he had even carried them upto a distance of about a mile to his village passing in front of the house of Jhaoo Singh for taking them to the cattle pond particularly when a shorter route was available to the complainant for taking the cattle to the cattle pond. 17. In view of the facts and circumstances as indicated above, it is difficult to hold that the Appellants were the aggressors and as such the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court cannot be sustained and it deserves to be set aside. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the Appellants are set aside. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged.