JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 17th Mar., 1982, passed by the Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur, by which, appellant Bhoora has been found guilty under section 307, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's rigorous imprisonment; while appellants Madan & Narain have been convicted under section 307/34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 21/2 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/. each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's rigorous imprisonment each. 2. One Hariya lodged a report on 5th July, 1980, at about 10.50 PM, at PS Cloth-ka-Barwada in District Sawaimadhopur, alleging that on the same day, at about 9 PM, in village Chainpura, he was taking rest, along with other persons, in front of his house, while Bhoora and Narain were passing along front of his house; they abused him and his sons Ramnarain and Kishanlal. The accused persons were annoyed due to some dealings in purchase of some land. Bhoora and Narain, while passing, stopped for a while, and Bhoora gave a lathi-blow to Kishanlal on his left hand. One Dhuliya was also sleeping nearby, and hearing some noise, he woke up. At that time, the complainant and the accused parties were abusing each other. And, it is alleged that Bhoora and Narain then went to their house, and came back along with accused Madan. Bhoora was having a sword in his hand, Madan an axe and Narain had a lathi in his hand. They started beating Ramnarain. Hearing the noise, Shankar, Gopi and Jeevan came to the spot, and the accused persons ran away. Ram Narain was then taken to hospital, who was examined by the doctor. On this report, the police registered a case under sections 307 & 326/34, IPC. After routine investigation, the police submitted a challan against three persons under sections 307 & 504/34, IPC. 3. The trial court framed charges against Bhoora under sections 337 & 504. IPC; and as against Madan and Narain under sections 307/34, IPC. After completing the trial, the trial court found the appellants guilty and sentenced each of them, as mentioned above. 4. 3. The trial court framed charges against Bhoora under sections 337 & 504. IPC; and as against Madan and Narain under sections 307/34, IPC. After completing the trial, the trial court found the appellants guilty and sentenced each of them, as mentioned above. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that according to the prosecution witnesses, the incident had taken place in front of the house of complainant Hariya. The SHO, during the investigation, prepared a site-map at the instance of complainant Hariya; and this site map is Ex.P. 4. Therein, the place of incident has been shown/marked as "X"--this is a front of the house of Prema Mali near the house of accused Bhoora. According to this site-plan No. 1 is the place where the complainant along with others. was sitting, and this place is in front of the house of complainant Hariya. From point "Y" the distance of point "X" has been shown as 30 paces. Though there is overwriting on figure "30", it seems that previously, there it was written "40" paces, then, it was overwritten and made "30" paces. This overwriting has no signature. It means, the SHO (investigating officer), who prepared the site-plan in presence of witnesses, had initially written it as 40 paces and later on, he interpolated and wrote it as 30 paces. This is the conduct of the investigating officer, once he writes something and then he changes it. It might be possible that while writing the distance, by mistake, first he wrote it as 40 paces and then he might have corrected it as 30 paces. But, he should have put his signature for this overwriting and noted the witnesses to put their signatures as well, so as to avoid any suspicion which is created in the mind of the Court. Criminal cases should always be clean and the police or prosecution should not create any sort of doubt, because, if any doubt is created, it is always fatal to the prosecution-case, so its benefit goes to the accused. So, the above-mentioned overwriting done by the investigating officer creates a doubt in the correctness of the site-plan, which is the basis of the entire criminal case. 5. Apart from this, all the injured persons and the witnesses have stated that the incident had taken place in front of the house of complainant Hariya. So, the above-mentioned overwriting done by the investigating officer creates a doubt in the correctness of the site-plan, which is the basis of the entire criminal case. 5. Apart from this, all the injured persons and the witnesses have stated that the incident had taken place in front of the house of complainant Hariya. It is on the record that at place "X". blood stained earth was collected by the investigating officer. Supposing that the place "X" was at a distance of 30 paces from the house of Hariya, how had the incident taken place at point "X"? All the witnesses have stated that when the accused persons, after giving one lathi blow went to their house to fetch sword, axe etc., they followed them and at place marked ''X", which is in front of the house of Prema Mali, the incident took place. So, how they treated the place as "X"? It means that the story that the accused persons after giving one lathi-blow, had gone to their house to fetch axe and sword, is a false story. Actually, the complainant and his party had followed the accused-persons and then the dispute took place at point marked "X" in Ex. P. 4. So, it creates a doubt about the place where the incident had taken place, which reflects that the prosecution has not come with clean hands; and the possibility is that either the investigation has not been done fairly, and if the site- plan (Ex. P. 4) is correct, then, the witnesses are not telling the truth. However, in all circumstances of suspicion and doubt, its benefit always goes to the accused and not to the prosecution. Moreover, there is no explanation on behalf of the prosecution to this aspect. 6. It was argued by the learned counsel that accused Bhoora and Madan had injuries on their persons. Their injuries were examined by Dr. Pooran Mal DW 2 at the request of the police; they were examined on 10th July, 1980; and according to the doctor, both the accused persons had lacerated wounds on their persons. The doctor has stated those injuries could not be self-inflicted. It means that they had 6 injuries on their bodies. The duration of those injuries was the same which was in the case of the members of the complainant-party. The doctor has stated those injuries could not be self-inflicted. It means that they had 6 injuries on their bodies. The duration of those injuries was the same which was in the case of the members of the complainant-party. So, it corresponds with the time and date when the complainant party had received injuries on their bodies. Ganga Singh Chauhan PW 9, the investigating officer has admitted that on 10th July, 1980, he had sent a requisition letter to the doctor, for the examination of the injuries on the persons of the accused persons and he had sent them when they were arrested. It means, the accused persons were sent on l0th July, 1980 when they were arrested by the investigating officer. Hariya PW 1, the complainant has stated in his cross-examination that Bhoora, Madan and Narain had also come to police station on the same day to lodge a report, when he was also there for lodging a report. It means, on 5th July, 1980, Bhoora accused also had gone to lodge a report. When aport against them was lodged and the accused persons were present at the police-station, the SHO should have arrested them; but, as stated by PW 1 Hariya, on the next day, 3 accused persons were arrested by the police, means on 6th July, 1980, they were arrested; but, the arrest-memo shows that they were arrested on 10th July, 1980. It means, the arrest-memo were falsely prepared; actually, the accused persons were arrested on 10th July, 1980; the police kept them at the police-station for 4 days, and on 10th July, 1980, their arrest was shown. 7. This all indicates that the investigation in this case was not at all done fairly. The accused persons had injuries on their persons, but, there is no explanation to those injuries. In the case of Lakshmi Singh and others v. The State of Bihar ( AIR 1976 SC 2263 ) , their Lordships have observed that if injuries are not explained by the prosecution, then, the presumption should be that either the witnesses are not stating the truth or that there is no truthfulness in the prosecution story. It also reflects that the actual dispute has not been brought before the court. It also reflects that the actual dispute has not been brought before the court. The argument of the learned Public Prosecutor in this context was that the injuries of the accused persons were very superficial, and so, it is not necessary to explain them. I do not agree with this argument. Those injuries were not superficial in nature, but, they were lacerated wounds; and according to the doctor, they could not be self-inflicted. So, the prosecution has to prove as to how the accused persons had received those injuries on their bodies; and as there is no explanation, it also creates doubt. 8. I have gone through the judgment, where the trial court has discussed the evidence, and all the aspects pertaining to difference about the place of incident and non-explanation of the injuries of the accused persons, and the trial court is found not to have interpreted and understood these aspects correctly; it seems that the trial court could not understand the criminal jurisprudence well, and it did not try to appreciate the arguments on behalf of the appellants, with regard to these two points. I, therefore, do not agree with the reasons given in the judgment of the trial court. 9. No doubt, some dispute had taken place between the two parties; but, what was the genesis of that dispute, which party was the aggressor, where the dispute had taken place, nothing has been established beyond reasonable doubt. As discussed above, doubt his been created in the prosecution story, and so also about the reliability of the witnesses, and so, the benefit of this doubt should go to the accused persons. In the present case, therefore, as the case has not been established beyond reasonable doubt, the judgment of the trial court cannot be sustained. 10. In the result, the appeal is accepted. Accused Bhoora is not found guilty under section 307, IPC, and his conviction (?) the sentence for this offence are set aside, and he is acquitted. Appellants Madan and Narain are not found guilty under section 307/34, IPC, and their conviction and sentence are also set aside and they are acquitted. All the appellants are on bail; their bail bonds are cancelled; and they need not surrender.Appeal accepted. *******