JUDGMENT R. K. Saksena, J. 1. Appellants, Fatta, Janga (real brothers), Ashgar (nephew of Fatta) and Shah Din (son of Janga) stand convicted under Sections 304 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, each read with Section 34 thereof, with a sentence of imprisonment for two years under the first and one year under the second count, per judgment and order dated the 29th of July 1978 passed by Sri D. L. Soni, the then, III Additional District and Sessions, Judge Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No. 160 of 1978. The decision has been assailed by all the four accused of the said trial by means of appeal which has been numbered as 2162 of 1978. 2. Smt. Moodi, one of the injured, is the wife of Shafi (deceased). She has filed revision registered as 1894 of 1978 praying that the punishment inflicted on each of the said accused-appellants be enhanced as it is not commensurate with the crime committed by them. The appeal and the revision, both, were heard together and are being disposed of by common decision. 3. A report was recorded on the 23rd of September, 1978 at 2.28 p.m. at police station Nakur, District Saharanpur on the information given by Smt. Moodi to the effect that her husband, Shafi, who used to conceal himself here and there for fear of being apprehended by the police (he was a notorious dacoit) was assaulted at about 12 noon by the above named four persons, resident of village Chirao, with Gandasa, Bhujauli and Lathi in a field of that village and when Smt. Moodi rushed to the scene of occurrence and made an attempt to save her husband, she was also assaulted with Bhujauli as a consequence whereof she suffered injury in her left hand finger, whereas her husband succumbed to the injuries sustained by him then and there. 4. The crime was registered and after usual investigation the said four persons were charge-sheeted as a consequence whereof they were tried for offence punishable under Sections 304, 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, each read with Section 34 thereof for in furtherance of common intention, fatally wounding Shafi, causing grevious and simple hurt to Smt. Moodi on the said date, time and place. Besides formal evidence, the prosecution examined Smt. Moodi, PW 1 and Noora, PW 2 as eye-witnesses of the incident. 5. Besides formal evidence, the prosecution examined Smt. Moodi, PW 1 and Noora, PW 2 as eye-witnesses of the incident. 5. All the accused denied the accusations and pleaded not guilty. They set up a counter-version as is contained in a report (Ext. Kha-2) lodged by Fatta, accused-appellant, at the said police station at 2.30 p.m. on the 23rd of September, 1978. It recites that at about 12 noon while Shah Din (nephew of Fatta) was irrigating his field, Shafi, a hardened criminal-dacoit, who was wanted in several crimes, came there with his brother Noora and his nephew Shaukat, son of Noora, and when they were about to make an assault on Shah Din, Fatta intervened. Thereupon Shafi with a Gandasa and his two other associates with lathis assaulted Fatta and caused injuries on his person. It is, further, mentioned in the report that in the course of Marnit, Shafi and his wife also received injuries. This version was the subject matter of consideration in the cross case (Sessions Trial No. 390 of 1977). Janga and Ashghar, accused, denied their participation, in any manner whatsoever in the incident. 6. Accepting the evidence of Smt. Moodi and Noora and rejecting the assertions of the accused-appellants injuries on the person of Shafi and Smt. Moodi were caused in exercise of the right of self-defence, the learned trial judge convicted and sentenced each of the four accused as stated at the outset. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Government Advocate. No body appeared to press the revision before us. Before pointing out the infirmities and disquiting ieatures, which appear in the evidence of Smt. Moodi and- Noora examined by the prosecution, we would like to refer to the stand taken by the accused at the earliest opportunity, in so far as it realtes to the exercise of right of private defence. The learned trial court mentions in paragraph 19 of its judgment :- "A perusal of first information report lodged by Fatta (Ex. kha 2) would bear out that plea of exercise of right of self defence was then not taken." This observation is not correct. It is clearly mentioned in the report lodged by Fatta, accused-appellant that the wife of Shafi had intervened during the 'Marpit' as a consequence whereof she 'too' had received injuries. kha 2) would bear out that plea of exercise of right of self defence was then not taken." This observation is not correct. It is clearly mentioned in the report lodged by Fatta, accused-appellant that the wife of Shafi had intervened during the 'Marpit' as a consequence whereof she 'too' had received injuries. The user of the word 'Marpit' connotes that there was a fight between two groups. It necessarily follows that some persons on the accused side also wielded weapon, obviously in self defence because the allegations of the report go to make the deceased and his nephew responsible for opening an assault on Fatta. The learned trial judge, therefore, formed an erroneous impression that the plea of self-defence was not indicated in the first information report. This erroneous impression resulted in leading him to an incorrect conclusion that Fatta accused-appellant has failed to show that he suffered wounds in the same incident. As a matter of fact, it was the case of Fatta, accused, from its very inception that Shafi, Smt. Moodi and he had received injuries in the same incident, the date, time and place being not in controversy at all. Even the learned trial court has accepted the version of Fatta that he had received a lacerated and an incised wound on his head region, which receives corroboration from the medical evidence (Ex. Kha 4 is the wound report) prepared on the same day at 3.30 P.M. These injuries were noted in the general diary also maintained by the police prepared immediately after the report lodged by him was recorded at the police station. The injuries were, per opinion of the doctor, quite fresh: it sychrocises with the time of incident also. Regard being had to the nature and situs of the injuries, the possibility of it having been self-suffered, stands completely ruled out. Further, the nature of the wounds clearly show that two types of weapons, a sharp and a blunt object, were used in inflicting those injuries. This is a recital in the report also lodged by Fatta. Regard being had to the nature and situs of the injuries, the possibility of it having been self-suffered, stands completely ruled out. Further, the nature of the wounds clearly show that two types of weapons, a sharp and a blunt object, were used in inflicting those injuries. This is a recital in the report also lodged by Fatta. There is, therefore, no room for doubt that the injuries were received by Fatta in the same transaction and we are firm in our conviction that there did take place an incident on the 23rd of September, 1976 at about 12 noon in the field of Fatta, appellant, in which Shafi and his wife, Smt. Moodi on one hand, and Fatta on the other received injuries. Once we arrive at the aforesaid conclusion, the matter becomes quite clear that the prosecution has suppressed true facts. The statements of Smt. Moodi and Noora that Fatta did not received any injury in that incident become false. It follows that the duty cast upon the prosecution to explain the injuries suffered by the accused in the same incident has not at all been discharged, rather there is a deliberate suppression of fact in that respect. The prosecution has, thus, failed to explain the injuries of Fatta appellant and, therefore, the inevitable result follows viz, the acquittal of all the accused-appellants. 7. However, we notice some absurdities in the claim of the said two eye witnesses of the incident. Shafi had received only three wounds on his person, one on his head region, the other on his left arm and the third one on the left elbow joint. They were contusions which cannot be a scribed to any sharp cutting weapon but we find an allegation in the first information report that two cutting weapons including a Phawara had been used by the assailants, four in number. The above named eye witnesses have also stated that all the four accused-appellants had sorrounded Shafi and had used their weapons in inflicting injuries on the person of Shafi. The statement, as noted above, does not receive corroboration from the medical evidence on record. It is a false embrodery and a fabricated assertion that two persons were armed with sharp cutting weapon and that they had used it in assaulting Shafi. Their evidence has, therefore, to be rejected. The statement, as noted above, does not receive corroboration from the medical evidence on record. It is a false embrodery and a fabricated assertion that two persons were armed with sharp cutting weapon and that they had used it in assaulting Shafi. Their evidence has, therefore, to be rejected. The approach of the learned trial judge that one who was armed with sharp cutting weapon is vicariously responsible for the assault made by his associates is erroneous and we cannot conceive that four persons opened an attack on Shafi, yet only three injuries were inflicted on his person. The further assertion of the witnesses that it was a pre planned attack intention being to Kill, is completely ruled out by the nature and number of the injuries. 8. Further, it is well settled that one is responsible only for his individual criminal act unless crime is committed in furtherance of common intention/object. As pointed out above, there was no common intention to end the life of Shafi. Therefore, one who inflicted fatal wound shall be responsible for the commission of the crime of murder or palpable homicide not amounting to murder, as the case may be. In the instant case there is no evidence as to who inflicted the head injury, which resulted in the death of Shafi. Therefore, even from that view of the matter vicarious liability cannot be fastened. However, since we have held that the prosecution has not only suppressed real facts connected with the origin of the fight but also about the injuries of Fatta, accused which necessarily needed an explanation, the prosecution fails and none of the appellants can be convicted for committing any offence. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal are set aside. The appellants are found not guilty and are acquitted on the charges stated at the out-set. They are on bail. They need not surrender. The sureties are discharged. 9. Criminal Revision no. 1894 of 1978, for the reasons stated above, is dismissed. Appeal allowed.