JUDGMENT G.B. Singh, J. 1. These two appeals are against the judgment and order dated 19-11-1981 of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sitapur, convicting the appellants under sections 147 and 308 IPC and sentencing them to six months R. I. and 11/2 year's R. I. respectively. 2. The case of the prosecution was that about three years before the occurrence Jafar was assaulted by Sobaran Yadav appellant and others upon which the assailants were being prosecuted. Raj Narain informant and his family members were doing Pairvi in that case on behalf of Jafar whereas Shri Ram appellant and others were doing Pairvi on behalf of Sobaran appellant and others. Shri Ram asked Raj Narain informant not to do Pairvi and threatened to beat him but he continued to do Pairvi on behalf of Jafar. On 24-9-1978 at about 5.00 P.M. Raj Narain informant and his brothers Babu Ram, Radhey Shyam and Sheo Ram had gone to Sarai Bazar for making certain purchases. The appellants armed with Lathis arrived there and surrounded the informant Raj Narain. They started assaulting him by Lathis whereupon he raised alarm. Radhey Shyam, Babu Ram and Sheo Ram rushed for his rescue but they were also assaulted by the appellants. The brothers of the informant Raj Narain used Dandas in their private defence. On the outcry made, Jangali, Pragi Lal, Husaini. Godhan and several other persons of the Bazar arrived and saved the informant and his brothers. The appellants thereafter went away towards village Majgawan giving threats of life and property. Raj Narain gave a written report Ext. ka-1 at Police Station Biswan on the same day, at 6.15 P.M. The Police Station is at a distance of about four and a half miles from Sarai Bazar. On the basis of that report a case under sections 147/323/308/506 IPC was registered against the appellants. Raj Narain, Radhey Shyam, Sheo Ram and Babu Ram were sent for medical examination. They were examined in the Government Hospital Biswan on the same day by Dr. C. B. Singh. He found 5 lacerated wounds, 6 contusions and one abraded contusion on the different parts of the body of Raj Narain informant. Raj Narain, Radhey Shyam, Sheo Ram and Babu Ram were sent for medical examination. They were examined in the Government Hospital Biswan on the same day by Dr. C. B. Singh. He found 5 lacerated wounds, 6 contusions and one abraded contusion on the different parts of the body of Raj Narain informant. On medical examination he found 5 lacerated wounds, one abraded contusion, 6 contusions and one abrasion on the person of Radhey Shyam, 6 lacerated wounds and 9 contusions on the person of Babu Ram and two lacerated wounds and one contusion on the person of Sheo Ram. According to Dr. C. B. Singh all the injuries were simple in nature. S. I. Bhagwan Bux Singh PW 4 investigated the case, prepared site-plan and submitted the charge- sheet. Shri Ram appellant lodged a report of the incident at Police Station Rampur Kalan District Sitapur at 9.30 P.M. on the same day. It may be mentioned here that Shri Ram and 9 other appellants are residents of village Majgawan Police Station Rampur Kalan and Raj Narain informant and Ms brothers are residents of village Jodhpur Pakaria and both the village lie within the circle of Police Station Rampur Kalan whereas Sarai Bazar lie within the area of Police Station Biswan. Sarai Bazar is at a distance of about two miles from the villages of the aforesaid appellants and the informant. Mubarak and Asghar appellants are residents of village Sarai in the market area of which the incident took place. Shri Ram alleged in his FIR that Jafar Ali and Raj Narain owed money to him and since he demanded it several times, Raj Narain and others were bearing ill-will against him and his brothers. The informant and his brother Surendra had gone to Sarai to make some purchases. When they were coming back at about 6.00 P.M. and reached on the road, Raj Narain, Radhey, Babu, Puttu, Munni, Jafar Ali, Mohammad Ali came near them. They were, armed with Lathis. The assailants started belabouring them by Lathis stating that 'you demand your money at all the places due to which you insult us'. When Surendra Kumar and Asghar Ali tried to save the informant (Shri Ram) they were also beaten by Lathis due to which all of them received injuries. Surendra threw brick-bats in order to save himself and others in private defence. When Surendra Kumar and Asghar Ali tried to save the informant (Shri Ram) they were also beaten by Lathis due to which all of them received injuries. Surendra threw brick-bats in order to save himself and others in private defence. Their injuries were examined at Primary Health Centre, Pahla, Sitapur by Dr. Q. A. Ansari on 25-9-1978 at about 9.00 A.M. He found 2 lacerated wounds, one multiple contusion in an area of 12 cm. x 6 cm., one circular contusion and three abrasions on the body of Shri Ram, one vertical contusion and one vertical abrasion on the person of Surendra Kumar and one lacerated wound, one contusion and two abrasions on the body of Asghar Ali. 3. On behalf of the prosecution Raj Narain PW 1, Radhey Shyam PW 2 and Sheo Ram PW 3 were examined as witnesses of the occurrence. The accused appellants did not examine any witness in defence. Shri Ram, Surendra and Asghar Ali accused made statements in their examination in support of the version disclosed in the First Information Report lodged on their behalf by Shri Ram appellant. The other accused stated that they have been falsely implicated on account of ill-will. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. They have now filed these appeals. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the evidence led by the prosecution is not reliable ; the circumstances indicate that the complainant and the members of his party were the aggressors ; Shri Ram and two others caused injuries to Raj Narain complainant and others in the exercise of their right of private defence and the appellants have, therefore, been wrongly convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 308 IPC. There is much force in this argument. 5. The prosecution examined Raj Narain PW 1, Radhey Shyam PW 2 and Sheo Ram PW 3 to prove that the occurrence took place in the manner alleged by'the prosecution. They are real brothers. It has clearly come in the state- ment of Raj Narain PW 1 that relations between him and his family members on one hand and Shri Ram appellant and others on the other were strained. They are real brothers. It has clearly come in the state- ment of Raj Narain PW 1 that relations between him and his family members on one hand and Shri Ram appellant and others on the other were strained. Shri Ram accused also alleged in his First Information Report and stated in his examination before the Court that Raj Narain and his brothers were ill-disposed towards him. Thus, in view of the fact that the witnesses are interrelated and ill-disposed towards the accused, their testimony deserves a careful scrutiny. It was mentioned in the First Information Report that Jangali, Pragi Lal, Husaini, Godhan and several others arrived on the spot at the time of the Marpit. None of them has been examined by the prosecution to support the statement of the aforesaid witnesses. It has been stated by Radhey Shyam PW 2 that the aforesaid witnesses have been won over by the accused. Had these witnesses been examined in the Court it could be ascertained if they had been won over by the accused. Even if these witnesses were not prepared to depose in favour of the prosecution, other persons who had assembled at the place of occurrence as stated in the First Information Report, could be examined in support of the prosecution case. The absence of any independent corroborative evidence in the present case cannot, therefore, be overlooked. It has been stated in the First Information Report by Raj Narain PW 1 that the Marpit took place in the Bazar. Shri Ram accused, on the other hand, mentioned in his First Information Report that when he and his brother came out of the Market area and reached on the road the Marpit took place. The site-plan prepared by the Investigating Officer Ext. ka-4 shows that the Marpit took place on the road which is at some distance from the Market area. Thus, Raj Narain did not give correct place of Marpit in the First Information Report. When he was examined as a witness he, however, adopted the place of incident as alleged by Shri Ram in his First Information Report and shown by the Investigating Officer. In the First Information Report Raj Narain did not disclose if something had taken place between the two parties immediately before the Marpit. When he was examined as a witness he, however, adopted the place of incident as alleged by Shri Ram in his First Information Report and shown by the Investigating Officer. In the First Information Report Raj Narain did not disclose if something had taken place between the two parties immediately before the Marpit. The motive for the Marpit as alleged in the FIR is doing Pairvi on behalf of one Jafar appears insufficient for the assault in the manner as it has been alleged in the FIR and stated by the prosecution witnesses. Shri Ram accused, on the other hand, put forward a natural version in that connection. In his FIR he: stated that the assault was made because he demanded money from Raj Narain which he was owing to him. Raj Narain did not mention in his First Information Report that his brothers wielded Lathi or Danda in private defence and thereby caused injuries to the accused. Before the Investigating Officers also Raj Narain PW 1, Radhey Shyam PW 2 and Shri Ram PW 3 did not state if they used some weapons in private defence and caused injuries to the accused. In evidence before the Court Raj Narain and other prosecution witnesses could not explain about these vital omissions. They stated for the first time before the Court that Babu Ram, Radhey Shyam and Sheo Ram used Dandas in their private defence. All the three witnesses even then did not admit that the accused received injuries in the Marpit. The injury reports filed on behalf of the accused clearly shows that Shri Ram, Surendra Kumar and Asghar Ali on the side of the accused received several injuries. In view of these injuries it is difficult to believe that the complainant and the members of his party had not seen the injuries of the accused. Raj Narain PW 1 stated that he was assaulted first by the accused and on his alarm his brothers Radhey Shyam, Babu Ram and Sheo Ram arrived and on their arrival they were beaten by the accused., Radhey Shyam PW 2 has given a different story. He stated that first Raj Narain was assaulted and on his outcry he arrived. The accused then assaulted him. After him Babu Ram reached and he was then assaulted by the accused. He stated that first Raj Narain was assaulted and on his outcry he arrived. The accused then assaulted him. After him Babu Ram reached and he was then assaulted by the accused. Sheo Ram PW 3 stated that on the receipt of the injuries Raj Narain fell down whereupon his brothers Radhey Shyam and Babu Ram reached the place of the incident and they were assaulted by the appellants. While they were being assaulted, he reached the place of the incident and he was also then beaten by the appellants. From all this it is evident that the prosecution evidence cannot be safely relied upon about the place of assault, the sequence of events and the manner in which the assault took place. 6. It is admitted to the parties that Marpit took place near Sarai Bazar on the relevant day at about 5 or 6 P. M. It is undisputed that on the side of the complainant Raj Narain PW 1, Radhey Shyam PW 2, Sheo Ram PW 3 and one Babu Ram received injuries whereas on the side of the accused appellants Sri Ram, Surendra Kumar and Asghar received injuries. It is also undisputed that these injuries were simple in nature and were caused by blunt weapon like Lathi or by friction with some hard substance. It is undisputed that both the parties lodged cross reports of the incident sometime after the occurrence. It is also true that Raj Narian lodged report of the incident on 24-9-1978 at 6.15 P. M. at Police Station Bis wan in whose circle the incident took place whereas Sri Ram lodged the report of the incident on the same day at 9.30 P. M. at Police Station Rampur Kalan within the circle of which the complainant and the accused reside. The difference in time and the place does not appear of much significance in the circumstances of the case. It is also true that the number of injuries received on the side of the complainant are in excess than the injuries received on the side of the accused but this circumstance also cannot lead to the inference that the accused were the aggressors. The reason is that the number of injuries depend upon the agility of the person causing the injury and the position in which the victim is found at the time of the assault. The reason is that the number of injuries depend upon the agility of the person causing the injury and the position in which the victim is found at the time of the assault. It is also true that the cross case started on the First Information Report of Shri Ram ended in acquittal but this fact cannot be much emphasised because the prosecution can succeed on its own strength. The injuries received by the victims on both the sides show that both the parties were armed with Lathis. The omission on the part of Raj Narain informant to explain the injuries found on the person of the accused in the FIR and the silence of the prosecution witnesses in this connection at the stage of investigation can be treated as a circumstance favourable to the defence. The evidence led by the prosecution does not prove satisfactorily that the occurrence took place in the manner pleaded by it. The reasonable inference which can be drawn by the failure of the prosecution witnesses to make consistent statement about the manner in which the assault took place is that they can hardly be believed. The manner in which they suppressed the injuries of the accused upto the stage of investigation makes their evidence subject to a careful scrutiny. The improvements made by the prosecution witnesses in their statement about the place of incident, the injuries of the accused and the manner in which the assault took place, indirectly support the defence version. 7. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. The right of private defence presupposes attack or aggression by the person against whom the right is claimed. If an accused claimed right of private defence the burden is on him to prove the same. Such a defence can be made out on the basis of the prosecution evidence also where the evidence let in by the accused for proving his right of self-defence is not sufficient and satisfactory but if it is taken with the prosecution evidence raises doubt as to his guilt, he must be given the benefit of it. The quantum of proof required for the accused to prove the case of private defence is sufficient if the accused make out a prima facia case. The quantum of proof required for the accused to prove the case of private defence is sufficient if the accused make out a prima facia case. If he succeeds in creating a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as to whether he acted in self-defence or not he is entitled to the benefit of the exception of self-defence. In the present case the aforesaid circumstances and the nature of evidence as has been led by the prosecution to prove its case create a reasonable doubt if the accused acted in self-defence or not and as such they appear entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid exception of private defence. It may also be added here that there are two important principles in every criminal trial which weigh heavily in favour of the accused. One of them is that the accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt and the other is that where the accused offers a reasonable explanation of his conduct even though he cannot prove his assertion, it should ordinarily be accepted unless the circumstances indicate that it is false. In the present case the prosecution evidence does not prove that the theory of private defence set up by the accused is false. It, on the other hand, indicates that the explanation given by the accused cannot be discarded as unreasonable. In any view of the matter the case of the prosecution does not appear established beyond doubt by cogent evidence. The appellants are, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt and their conviction and sentence cannot be upheld. 8. The appeals are allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges punishable under sections 147 and 308 IPC. The appellants are on bail. The bail-bonds are discharged. Appeals allowed.