JUDGMENT S. K. Dhaon, J. 1. The 9 appellants before us and three other persons, namely, Shamim, son of Niaz Ali, Irfan, son of Rehman and Sukhpal son. of Kehar Singh were put up on trial before the Sessions Judge for facing charges under sections 302/149, 307/149 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The last three persons have been acquitted while the remaining have been convicted. Hence this appeal. 2. There were cross first information reports. The occurrence took place in village Lohiya at a distance of about 5 kilometres from the police station Daurala in the district of Meerut. The date of occurrence is 30th August, 1978. According to one version the occurrence took place at 6.15 p.m. while according to the other it took place at 6.00 p.m. The parties are Gujars and are. therefore, members of the same community. Their houses are situated at a distance of 250 paces from each other. Tejpal Singh, son of Deshraj Singh, lodged a written report on 30th August, 1978 at 8.15 p.m. The material allegations in the report are these. Harpal Singh, the brother of Tejpal Singh, is the Pradhan of the village. Rain water had accumulated in the village. The houses and pathways were inundated. A week back Harpal Singi, the Pradhan of the village (hereinafter referred to as the Pradhan) collected the inhabitants of the village and suggested that the water may be let out; through an adjacent old drain. Every one agreed, but, on account of party politics, Kehar Singh opposed the suggestion and in that connection there was a verbal duel between the Pradhan and Kehar Singh with the result that tie digging of the drain was suspended. Yesterday (29th August, 1978), with a view to pick up a quarrel, Kehar Singh falsely alleged that the son of the Pradhan had teased his daughter- in-law (Bahu). This was a false rumour spread by Kehar Singh. Today (30th August, 1978) at about 6.15 P.M.. the 9 appellants and the aforesaid 3 persons with a common object, armed with lathi, licensed gun and country- made pistols arrived. The Pradhan, his sons Rajveer and Rajendra were inside their compound Shamim and Dharampal loudly exhorted to kill them (Harpal Singh, Rajveer and Rajendra) and do not allow them to escape. the 9 appellants and the aforesaid 3 persons with a common object, armed with lathi, licensed gun and country- made pistols arrived. The Pradhan, his sons Rajveer and Rajendra were inside their compound Shamim and Dharampal loudly exhorted to kill them (Harpal Singh, Rajveer and Rajendra) and do not allow them to escape. They commenced firing On hearing the firing, witnesses (1) Balbir son of Kiran Singh, (2) Bheese son of Jhurnman, (3) Rajpal son of Sukhhan, (4) Chotey son of Badlu, (5) Ompal son of Devi Singh, (6) Jaiprakash son of Santu, (7) Than Singh son of Kaley and (8) Mahabir son of Hukam Singh came to rescue. They (the witnesses) also fired upon 12 assailants and Rajendra too fired from the licensed gun of the Pradhan in his self-defence. As a result of the firing by Rajendra, the accused (assailants) were also injured. As a result of the firing of the accused, Balbir died on the spot. Rajendra son of Pradhan, the Pradhan, Bheese son of Jhumman Rajpal son of Horpal, Satveer son of Harpal Singh,, Rajveer Singh, son of Harpal Singh, Rajpal son of Sukhhan, Chotey son of Badlu and Ompal son of Devi Singh have received bullet and pellet injuries. The condition of Rajendra is serious. The injured has been brought to the police station. 3. The cross report was lodged by Dhanpal Singh son of Mehar Singh on the same day, viz. 30th August, 1978, at 9.10 P.M. The allegations in this report were these. On account of the inundation of the village by rain water the pathway to the Jungle (open field) was through the Gher of the Pradhan. The wife of Jagdish, the nephew of Dhanpal, was going to the open field through the said Gher. Yesterday (28th -'August, 1978). Satveer, son of the Pradhan teased the lady. On her return, she complained to the members of the family. We requested the Pradhan to ask his son to desist from doing so in future. On hearing this, the Pradhan lost his temper and observed that some thing more will be done. On 30th August, 1978, at about 6.00 P.M. Tejpal son of Deshraj, Harpal son of Deshraj, Satveer son of Harpal, Veerpal son of Taj, Rajendra son of Harpal and Balbir son of Karini, in a consort, armed with guns and lathis attacked their houses and started beating Kehar Singh. On 30th August, 1978, at about 6.00 P.M. Tejpal son of Deshraj, Harpal son of Deshraj, Satveer son of Harpal, Veerpal son of Taj, Rajendra son of Harpal and Balbir son of Karini, in a consort, armed with guns and lathis attacked their houses and started beating Kehar Singh. Kehar Singh raised an alarm and thereupon Latoor san of Kaley, Shishpal son of Ajab Singh, Bharta son of Nanda and Kami wife of Bharta rushed to save Kehar Singh. The accused fired at them also. As a result of the firing the said persons had received injuries. This incident was witnessed by Bhagmal, Ranveer and others; In defence, Bhawar Singh also fired. The injured had been brought to the police station. 4. Rajendra Singh died in the hospital. An inquest report was prepared on 31st August, 1978. The post-mortem was conducted on the bodies of the deceased, namely, Balbir Singh and RAJENDRA Singh. The injuries of the injured persons on both the sides were medically examined. Post mortem of Balbir Singh was conducted on 31st August, 1978 at 4.30 p.m. His body was identified by constables Taj Mohammad and Raj Kumar, the deceased was aged about 30 years. The duration of death was about one day. Body was average built. He had the following ante mortem injuries :- 1. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep on left side front 4 cm outer to the nipple at 9 O' clock position. 2. Gun shot wound of entry 1 am x 1 cm x chest cavity deep on left side front of the chest outer side 3 cm above injury no. 1. 3. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm abdominal cavity deep on the left side of the abdomen. 4. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep on the upper part 10 cm above the umbilicus at 10' clock position. 5 Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the right side of the abdomen 6 cm outer to the injury no. 4. 6. Gun shot wound of exist 2 cm x 2 cm on the left side of the chest back below the lower border of scapula. 5 Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the right side of the abdomen 6 cm outer to the injury no. 4. 6. Gun shot wound of exist 2 cm x 2 cm on the left side of the chest back below the lower border of scapula. 7.Gun shot wound of exist 2 cm x 2 cm on the outer part of left side abdomen upper part. 8.Gun shot wound of exist 2 cm x 1.5 cm on the right side back middle part. 9.Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm on the back of the right forearm lower part. On internal examination pleura was lacerated, right and left lungs were lacerated and peritorium. was lacerated, small intestines and large intestine and gall bladder were lacerated, No blackening and charging was present on the gun shot wounds of entry. Two big shots were recovered from the chest cavity and abdominal cavity. The cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage. 5. The post mortem of Rajendra was conducted on 31-8-1978 at 2.30 p.m. He was aged 25 years with average built body. Duration of death was half day to one day. The body was identified by constables Nand Ram and Krishnapal. Rajendra had following external injuries :- 1. Gun shot wound of inlet 1 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep on the left side 8 cm below left nipple at 5 O'clock position. 2. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm abdominal cavity deep on the right side of the abdomen on the upper part 6 cm away from the umbilicus at 2 O' clock position. 3. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the middle of abdomen 2 cm away from the umbilicus at 7 O' clock position. 4. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the right side of the abdomen outer side 2 cm above the enterior aspect of illiac spine. 5. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm x bone on the right side of the upper arm part on the back side. 6. Gun shot wound of exist 2 cm x 1 1/2 cm on the right arm internal side upper part communicating with injury no. 5. 5. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm x bone on the right side of the upper arm part on the back side. 6. Gun shot wound of exist 2 cm x 1 1/2 cm on the right arm internal side upper part communicating with injury no. 5. On internal examination pleura was lacerated, right lung was lacerated, peritorium was lacerated, small intestines and large intestine were lacerated at places. No blackening and charring was present around the gun shot wound of entry. Two big shots were recovered from the right chest and abdominal cavity. The cause of death was due to slock and haemorrhage. 6. According to medical evidence of Dr. M. P. Agarwal (PW 5) he had examined the injured persons in the intervening night of 30-8-1978 and 31-8-1978 between 11 P.M. and 1 A.M. and these injuries reports are Ext. Ka-2 to Ext. Ka-9. I Bheese 1. He had one gun shot injury of entry 1 cm x 1.8 cm depth was not probed in the interest of the patient on the left side upper part front of the chest 10 cm above nipple. Fresh bleeding; was present. X-ray was advised. The injury was caused by fire arm. It was fresh. According to Ext. Ka 12 X-ray report radio opaque shadow of mettalic density near the tinner end of left clavicle:. Left costphin-hazy. II Harpal (Ext. Ka 3). He had gun shot injuries at 4 places. 1. One gun shot wound left side back of chest. 2. Illica region the back side. 3. Left buttock. 4. Two gun shot wounds on the right elbow. Injury no. 1 was kept under observation. Rest were simple. All caused by fire arm and were fresh. Ill Rajveer Singh (Ext. Ka 4) He had one gun shot wound of entry 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the left forearm inner side with a gun shot wound of exit 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm on back of the left forearm outer sidle. Traumatic swelling 6 cm x 4 cm area all around on the back of forearm left middle part was present. X-ray was advised. It was freshly caused by fire arm and the injury was kept under observation. ACCORDING to X-ray report Ext. Ka 13 multiple metalic radio opeque shadows were present with fracture of the shaft both bone of left forearm. IV. Rajbal (Ext. X-ray was advised. It was freshly caused by fire arm and the injury was kept under observation. ACCORDING to X-ray report Ext. Ka 13 multiple metalic radio opeque shadows were present with fracture of the shaft both bone of left forearm. IV. Rajbal (Ext. Ka 5) He had 3 injuries. 1. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm :x scalp on right side of head. 2. Traumatic swelling 10 cm x 4 cm on left side. On the middle forehead. X-ray was advised. 3. Traumatic swelling 3 cm x 2 cm on the top of the left shoulder. The injuries nos. 1 and 3 were simple. No. 2 was kept under observation. They were freshly caused by blunt object. ACCORDING to X-ray report Ext. Ka 15 there was fracture of the right front parietal bone. V. Ompal (Ext. Ka 6). 1. Gun shot wound of entry front of the right knee-fresh bleading present. 2. Gun shot wound lower part inner side left knee. 3. Traumatic swelling 10 cm x 8 cm. middle part of the left leg front and inner side X-ray was advised. 4. Gun shot wound left knee lower part outer side. 5. Gun shot wound upper and outer part of left leg. 6. Gun shot wound on left leg. The X-ray report Ext. Ka 14 shows multiple metallic radio opeque shadow with facture shaft of tibia left side. VI. Rajpal (Ext. Ka 6) 1. Gun shot wound on left thigh middle and outer part. 2. Gun shot wound of exit 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm on back of middle back of mid left thigh. 3. Abrasion 1 cm x 1.5 cm on the upper part of the left side front chest. The injury was caused by fire arm. Simple and fresh. VII Chhotey (Ext. Ka-8). Had one gun shot wound on the right upper part on the front. It was simple caused by fire arm and fresh in nature. VIII Satveer (Ext. Ka-9). He had one gun shot wound on right back side lower part. The injury was simple caused by fire arm and fresh in nature. The injured persons on the side of the accused, as appears from the statement of Dr. Agarwal PW 5 were as follows : Kehar Singh had 3 incised wounds and one traumatic swelling. All the injuries were fresh. The injuries no. The injury was simple caused by fire arm and fresh in nature. The injured persons on the side of the accused, as appears from the statement of Dr. Agarwal PW 5 were as follows : Kehar Singh had 3 incised wounds and one traumatic swelling. All the injuries were fresh. The injuries no. 1 and 3 were under observation and rest were simple. The injuries were on tie right side head just below the right ear, right side head above the right ear, and left side of the head above the left ear and traumatic swelling was on the left shoulder. The incised wounds were caused by some sharp edged weapon and no. 4 was caused by blunt weapon. Rishipal had one gun shot wound of entry 4 cm x 4 cm x depth not probed. Kept under observation on the scapular region upper part on the back chest ; X-ray was advised. The second injury was abrasion on the right knee. Injury no. 1 was caused by fire arm and no. 2 was by friction. According to Ex-ray plate and report Ext. Ka-8 multiple metallic density shadow were found on the right scapula on the back side over the right back. Smt. Kirno had following injuries : 1. Gun shot wound of entry 2 cm x 2 cm, depth not probed on the left shoulder outside. Kept under observation. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray was advised. 2. gun shot wounds in an arm of 10 cm. x 11 cm. on the left side chest lower part in mid axillary and anterior axillary. The depth was not probed. According to X-ray report Ext. Ka-1(no shadow of fracture was found. Latoor Singh had following injuries : 1. The left eye had swelling with sub-conjested Haemotoma internal acts of eye was not possible and it was referred to eye specialist with advised for X-ray. 2. Gun shot wound of entry 2 cm x 2 mm superficial on the right side of the face ; X-ray was advised. 3. Gun shot wound of entry 2 cm x 2 mm on the front and middle part of the neck-X-ray was advised. The injuries were fresh. Nos. 2 and 3 were simple, caused by fire arm. There is no supplementary report. X-ray report is Ext. Ka-10 proved by PW 5 and the X-ray plate is Exts. 3. Gun shot wound of entry 2 cm x 2 mm on the front and middle part of the neck-X-ray was advised. The injuries were fresh. Nos. 2 and 3 were simple, caused by fire arm. There is no supplementary report. X-ray report is Ext. Ka-10 proved by PW 5 and the X-ray plate is Exts. 8, 9 and in the skull and the left orbit multiple round radio opeque matallic density shadow were seen scattered in the skull and the face. One metallic was seen in the left orbit. No fracture was seen. According to Ext. Ka-11 proved by defence witness Dr. Mathur multiple wounded radio opaque matallic density shadow are seen scattered in the region of skull and face. One metallic each seen in the left orbit lying behind the orbit. No fracture was seen. Bharta had the following injuries : 1. Gun shot wound of entry 5 cm. x 6 cm. x 11 cm. (depth not probed) on left side of the chest outer part 10 cm. from the left nipple at 2.30 O' clock position. X-ray was advised. 2. Lacerated wound 3 cm. x 1 cm. x scalp deep on the middle of the head 15 cm. above x nose abridge. X-ray was advised. 3. Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm x scalp left side head 15 cm. above left ear. The injury no. 1 was caused by fire arm. According to X-ray report multiple radio opaque metallic density shadow were seen on the left side of the chest above and below the dome: and dia and left lung was partially collapsed. A drainage tube was on the left side of the chest. Marked surgical and emphysema was seen. No fracture was seen. 7. The injuries of all the injured were fresh. 8. The prosecution has examined 4 eye-witnesses in all. Its case has been unfolded at the trial by the star witness Tejpal (PW 1). His deposition, as relevant, is this. He has given certain instances which may create an impression of previous enmity with the Pradhan, his brother and him on the one side and the accused persons on the other. The day on which the Pradhan had called the villagers to get over the water logging for the purposes of diverting the accumulated water through the old drain, the Pradhan and other villagers had addressed Kehar Singh as a Gunda. The day on which the Pradhan had called the villagers to get over the water logging for the purposes of diverting the accumulated water through the old drain, the Pradhan and other villagers had addressed Kehar Singh as a Gunda. On the date of the incident, Harpal, Rajveer and Rajendra were sitting under the Neem tree in open. A lady family member, Ram Dulari, was also present. All the 12 accused persons entered his house. Dhanpal Singh was armed with a licensed gun, Ranveer, Dhyan Singh, Latoor,Bhawar Singh and Naththu were armed with country made pistol, Shamim was armed with licensed gun, Sukhpal and Kehar Singh were armed with iron rods and Dheer Singh and Bharta were armed with lathis. Irfan carried a can with cartridges in it. The accused started firing at Harpal and his sons. Two other sons of Pradhan, namely, Satveer and Rajbal rushed towards the accused and asked them to desist from firing. The witnesses made verbal requests to the accused not to indulge in firing and thereafter the accused started firing at the witnesses. Upon this Rajendra also got his gun from his room and started firing in defence. Balbir died on the spot. Rajendra also fell on the spot. Others also fell on the spot. The accused fired at the witness but he avoided the gun shots. Ram Dulari too was injured. He had not taken Smt. Ram Dulari to the police station along with the injured persons. Amongst the accused only two persons, namely, Shamim and Dhanpal had licensed guns. At the time of occurrence there were only two guns. (PW 2) Rajveer Singh is the son of Harpal Singh, the Pradhan. He has substantially corroborated the version of the PW 1. Apparently, he is an interested witness. Therefore, much reliance cannot be placed on his testimony. (PW 3) Bheese also happens to be a family member of the Pradhan. He, therefore, does not appear to be an independent witness. (PW 4) is Jai Prakash. According to him, he arrived at the scene of occurrence after hearing shots of the fire. Apparently, he cannot be a witness of the fact as to how the fighting commenced. According to him, he was unarmed and there was no else between him and the accused. Curiously enough, he received no injuries at all. His presence at the scene is, therefore, doubtful. 9. Apparently, he cannot be a witness of the fact as to how the fighting commenced. According to him, he was unarmed and there was no else between him and the accused. Curiously enough, he received no injuries at all. His presence at the scene is, therefore, doubtful. 9. There can be no two opinions that in the village concerned, on the fateful day, a fierce fighting did take place between the two groups. The question still is as to whether the prosecution has been able to establish beyond any shadow of doubt that the incident took place in the manner as alleged. To be precise, we have to separate the wheat from the chaff to discern the truthfulness of the prosecution case that the accused went to the house of the Pradhan and the incident took place there. Having given our thoughtful consideration, we have a feeling that it will not be safe to rely upon the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. To determine this crucial question of fact we have, therefore, to concentrate upon the preponderance of the probabilities. 10. The Investigating Officer had not found any blood stains at either of the two spots where the incident is alleged to have taken place as asserted in the two first information reports. In other words, there was no trace of any blood either at the house or Gher of the Pradhan or inside or outside the house or Gher of Kehar Singh. This feature makes the prosecution case doubtful. The first information report as well as the depositions of the prosecution witnesses go to show that Rajendra Singh was; fired at from a close range. It is also clear from the postmortem report that he was fired at from a gun Yet we find that, according to the doctor, who conducted the post mortem on his body, there was no blackening and charring present around the gun shot injuries. This phenomenon therefore, rales out that Rajendra Singh was fired at from a close range. 11. We have already indicated that in the first information report Tejpal Singh is categorical that Balbir died on the spot. In his deposition, this witness in paragraph 64 stated that the dead body of Balbir was not placed on a cot. It was lying on the ground. 11. We have already indicated that in the first information report Tejpal Singh is categorical that Balbir died on the spot. In his deposition, this witness in paragraph 64 stated that the dead body of Balbir was not placed on a cot. It was lying on the ground. When he left the spot for lodging the first information report he had left the dead body at the spot. He returned to the scene of occurrence along with the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer, Sri Sukhpal Singh (PW 8), stated that he found the dead body of Balbir Singh on a cot. There was no blood on the cot. He did not find any blood at the alleged place of occurrence. He found no blood either at or near the walls. He did not, nor did he care to, find as to how the dead body of Balbir Singh reached the cot. In examination-in-chief this witness has stated that he found the dead body of Balbir Singh in the compound of the Pradhan. At this stage, we may also notice a very crucial fact that neither any blood was found near or about the alleged place of occurrence nor did the Investigating Officer find blood stained earth. Judicial notice should be taken of the fact that Balbir Singh was a Hindu and amongst the Hindus it is customery not to rest the dead body on a cot. A dead body is normally given rest on the floor. WE may also take judicial notice of the fact that amongst the Hindus it is a ritual to take the body of a person from the bed and place it on the floor the moment he dies or even a few seconds or minutes before death. No explanation is forthcoming as to why an unusual course was adopted in the case of Balbir Singh. It sounds quite probable that Balbir Singh was shot dead at some other place than alleged by the prosecution and was thereafter carried to the court yoard or compound of the Pradhan on a cot. If this be so, the prosecution case that the incident took place in the house of the Pradhan becomes doubtful. 12. It appears to be the common case that one of the sons of the Pradhan teased the wife of the nephew of Dhanpal. If this be so, the prosecution case that the incident took place in the house of the Pradhan becomes doubtful. 12. It appears to be the common case that one of the sons of the Pradhan teased the wife of the nephew of Dhanpal. Both the sides pin pointed Satveer, one of the sons of the Pradhan as the culprit. PW 1 has stated that Satveer along with Rajbal, the other son of the Pradhan, rushed towards the accused and asked them mot to fire. IT is thus apparent that Satveer and the accused met face to face., IT also appears that Satveer was unarmed and he was merely pleading that the accused should stop firing. Yet, the injuries inflicted on the person of Satveer unfold a different story. He received only one injury of a gun shot wound of entry 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x muscle right side back lower part. According to the doctor, the injury was simple and caused by fire arm. In fact, Satveer's injury was some what superficial. This looks rather odd. The main target of the accused should have been Satveer. He was the immediate cause of the trouble. IT is in the evidence of Rajveer Singh (PW 2) that Kehar Singh shouted that these persons had teased his daughter-in-law, therefore, they should be killed. The fact that the body of Satveer remained almost unscathed is yet another circumstance to indicate that the incident did mot take place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. It is not the case of the prosecution that spear was used either by the accused or by any one on the side of the Pradhan. However, the medical report indicates that Kehar Singh received two incised wounds, a reference to which has already been made above. As already indicated, the doctor had pointed out that the two injuries had been caused by the fresh sharp edged object. No explanation has been offered by the prosecution at all as to how incised wounds were inflicted on the body of Kehar Singh. To get over this difficulty, the Sessions Judge has surmised that, in view of difference of 15 minutes between the timings given by the two sides in the first information reports, it is just possible that Kehar Singh may have received injuries of incised wounds some where else. To get over this difficulty, the Sessions Judge has surmised that, in view of difference of 15 minutes between the timings given by the two sides in the first information reports, it is just possible that Kehar Singh may have received injuries of incised wounds some where else. It is not the prosecution case that Kehar Singh was involved in any skirmish on the fateful day. In our opinion, the Additional Sessions Judge allowed his imagination to run riot so as to deprive the accused of the benefit of an important circumstance. We have no doubt that, in the absence of a plausible explanation regarding incised wounds on the body of Kehar Singh, the prosecution case that the incident took place at the house of the Pardhan. and in the manner alleged becomes doubtful. 13. The prosecution tried to develop the case that one lady, namely, Smt. Ram Dulari, who was in the house of either the Pradhan or Tejpal Singh, had been injured. This was not the case set up in the first information report. This lady was medically examined but for some reason or the other her injuries were not proved by the prosecution. This also makes the prosecution case doubtful. On the contrary, in the counter first information report, there is a definite reference to an injury being caused to Smt. Karni (Smt. Kirno), wife of Bharta. The prosecution witnesses admitted that this lady was not seen any where near the house of the Pradhan, the alleged place of occurrence. This lady received one gun shot wound of entry 2 cm x 2 cm. depth not probed on the left shoulder outer side and three gun shot wounds in an area of 10 cm. x 11 cm. on the left side chest lower part in mid axillary and anterior axillary. The injury of this lady, who is admittedly the wife of Bharta, one of the accused, is yet another circumstance to indicate that the incident did not take place at the house of the Pradhan but elsewhere, may be at the place, as stated in the cross first information report. 14. We have alredy referred to the injuries received by Rajendra Singh. WE may look at them again. It is apparent that he received serious injuries on vital parts. 14. We have alredy referred to the injuries received by Rajendra Singh. WE may look at them again. It is apparent that he received serious injuries on vital parts. The definite case of the prosecution is that Rajendra Singh was sitting under the Neem tree along with his father and another brother and the accused lost no time in firing at them. According to the prosecution, Kehar Singh was exhorting all the time that none of the sons of the Pradhan should be left alive. The injuries on the person of Rajendra Singh also indicate that he was a target. It is most improbable that, after being subjected to such serious injuries, he was in a position to go inside the house, pick up the gun of his father, walk back and thereafter start firing. This circumstance, therefore, also makes the prosecution case doubtful. The Investigating Officer (PW 8) has stated that he found an empty cartridge near the compound (Gher) of the Pradhan. The doctor has started that he discovered two pellets (Bari Goli) from the cavity of the abdomen of Rajendra Singh and he passed them on to the Senior Superintendent of Police after sealing them. It has come in evidence that the licensed guns of Shamim and Dhanpal were seized. From the material on record, it does not appear that the gun of the Pradhan was taken into custody. It is surprising that the pellets found in the body of Rajendra Singh and the empty cartridge alleged to have been found near the house of the Pradhan were not sent to the ballistic expert for his opinion. The report of the ballistic expert could have determined the fact as to whether Dhanpal had used his licensed gun on the fateful day. 15. The prosecution improved its case through the testimonies of its witnesses. It will be recalled that in the first information report its was specifically mentioned that the accused were armed with lathis, licensed guns and country made pistols. However, in Court the prosecution witnesses came out with the case that Sukhpal and Kehar Singh were armed with iron rods and Irfan was carrying a can containing cartridges. THEse were material omissions in the first information report. This, therefore, is another factor which makes the prosecution case doubtful. 16. However, in Court the prosecution witnesses came out with the case that Sukhpal and Kehar Singh were armed with iron rods and Irfan was carrying a can containing cartridges. THEse were material omissions in the first information report. This, therefore, is another factor which makes the prosecution case doubtful. 16. The Investigating Officer (PW 8), Sri Bhopal Singh, in paragraphs 31 and 32 of his deposition states : Bhopal lodged his report at 9.10 P.M. He was busy in an investigation. He was sitting outside the police station and investigating into the matter. The reports of Dhanpal and Tejpal Singh were registered by the Head Moharrir Rampal Singh. Neither Rampal Singh informed him nor did he learn that Dhanpal was cited as one of the accused in the report lodged by Tejpal. The place where he was sitting was at a distance of 50 paces from the entrance to the police station. He was not aware that Latoor Singh, Kehar Singh, Rishipal, Bharta and Smt. Karni accompanied Dhanpal to the police station. We are not prepared to believe that the witnesses did not know that Dhanpal had been cited as an accused in the first information report lodged by Tejpal. In the normal course, Dhanpal should have been arrested at the police station itself. The fact that he was not arrested indicates that the first information report of Tejpal may have been ante-timed. Therefore, the prosecution case becomes doubtful. Three persons who have been acquitted by the Sessions Judge have been assigned important roles in the episode both in the first information report as well as in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. Their acquittal makes the prosecution case doubtful. 17. We have found that the direct evidence led by the prosecution is not of an acceptable character. Therefore, motive of the crime is not material. Motive behind the crime is a relevant factor on which evidence can be given. Absence of motive is also a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence. Motive is indicated to heiten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was compelled by the motive. If the crime is alleged to have been committed by a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in with the motive. 18. Motive is indicated to heiten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was compelled by the motive. If the crime is alleged to have been committed by a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in with the motive. 18. We may now advert to the submissions of Sri Tapan Ghosh, the learned counsel for the complainant, that the motive, as established in this case, indicates that the accused were the aggressors. The contention is that it is the definite case of the defence that Satveer had teased the daughter-in- law of Kehar Singh and this, according; to Sri Ghosh, was the immediate cause which impelled the accused to launch an attack upon the Pradhan. It is in evidence that there was political rivalry between the Pradhan and Kehar Singh. It has also come in evidence of the PW 1 that the Pradhan and the members of his family were quite prosperous in so far as they held 400 bighas of agricultural land, they possessed a grove of an area of 10 bighas, their houses were of permanent character, they had a tractor and they had installed three tube-wells. According to this witness, Dhanpal and Kehar combined had about 150 bighas land. A Pradhan of the village occupies an important position and is quite influential also. Therefore, it can be logically inferred that on the spot the Pradhan and the members of his family weilded considerable power. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the Indian society, particularly in villages, the honour of the women-folk is given considerable importance. Even an attempt to dishonour a woman of his family will mot be propagated by a person. This phenomenon operates with greater vigour in the villages. A person who is strong and has a following in the village will certainly harbour a feeling of revenge, if such a treatment is given out to a female member of his family. But, he will be the last person to cry from the house-top that such an incident has occurred and he should be given protection. Therefore, we feel that the version given in the cross report that Kehar Singh had gone to the Pradhan with a view to lodge a complaint against Satveer appears to be more probable. But, he will be the last person to cry from the house-top that such an incident has occurred and he should be given protection. Therefore, we feel that the version given in the cross report that Kehar Singh had gone to the Pradhan with a view to lodge a complaint against Satveer appears to be more probable. The remark of the Pradhan that some thing more will be done also appears to be probable. 19. We have already emphasised above that even though the accused had full opportunity to butcher Satveer to death they did not do so and allowed him (Satveer) to remain alive with a simple injury. The precise words used in Hindi for teasing the aforesaid lady by both the sides are ''chher chhar." No evidence has been produced by the prosecution to throw light on the extent of the misbehaviour of Satveer with the lady. WE, therefore, take the view that the evidence of motive, if any, against the accused is inadequate. 20. Sri Ghosh also emphasised upon the fact that the Investigating Officer had found pellets on the walls of the Gher of the Pradhan We may read the deposition of that Officer, who is Sukhpal Singh (PW 8). The question put to him is : Did you see any pellet marks at the scene of occurrence ? The answer is that he was told that there were pellet marks at the pillars inside the Gher. He further states that he saw them also. Thereafter, the witness looks into diary and says that the pillar is of the main entrance of the house. Then he says there were: pillars inside the Gher. Then he says that he was told that the marks were of the pellets and those marks appeared to him like those of pellets chhar re ke jaise nisan lagte hain. Evidently the witness is not certain, that the alleged marks were caused by pellets. The subsidiary submissions made by Sri Ghosh are that the cross first information report was lodged one hour after the first information report of Tejpal Singh, that the guards were posted by the Investigating Officer at the house of the complainant after the incident on the next day, that the dead body of Balbir Singh was found inside the Gher of the Pradhan and that two persons had been killed on the side of the Pradhan. These factors, according to the counsel, tilted the balance in favour of the prosecution and made its case more probable. 21. It is unfortunate that two lives were lost in the incident but this factor and the other features dilated upon by Sri Ghosh do not, in our opinion, turn the tables. We have already referred to the position and the power of the Pradhan. IT was but natural for the Investigating Officer to post some guards at his house on the day following the incident. This, in our opinion, is an irrelevant consideration. 22. We should not forget the fact that injuries of grievous nature had been sustained by the accused persons also including a lady, namely, Smt. Karni alias Karno. No plausible explanation is forthcoming as to how and in what manner the accused persons and Smt. Karni received the injuries. We confess that inspite of beat efforts we have not been able to discern the truthfulness of either the prosecution or the defence versions with regard to the place of occurrence. Aforetiori we are extremely doubtful as to which side is the aggressor. We have to keep in mind that an accused can be convicted only when on the evidence produced the Court is in a position to come to a definite conclusion, beyond the possibility of reasonable doubt, that the accused committed the offence with, which he stands charged. No conviction can be based on mere possibilities. Nor is it permissible for the Court to speculate as to what actually happened. It is not open to the Court to make out a third case which is different from the case set up by both the parties. 23. In the cross first information report as well as in the statements of the accused recorded under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is apparent that the accused have raised the plea of private defence. The law is well settled whereas the prosecution has to establish its case beyond any reasonable doubt the accused has merely to demonstrate as to what is more probable and as to what should be the rational view of the case in order to get the benefit of the plea of self-defence. The defence has to merely pass the test of the preponderance of probabilities. The defence has to merely pass the test of the preponderance of probabilities. IN our opinion, the facts and circumstances of the case do not rule out the possibility of the accused acting in self defence while causing injuries to Pradhan and others. 24. The prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge of guilt beyond doubt. The appellants are, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellants under various sections of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. They are acquitted. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Appeal allowed.