K. K. BIRLA, J. ( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 25-7-1979 passed in S. T. No. A 28 of 1979 by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, Sarvarsri Jodh Singh, Ram Kishan, Gyan Singh and Kishan Pal have preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) APPELLANTS Ram Kishan, Gyan Singh and Kishan Pal are the sons of appellant Jodh Singh, Bhopal Singh and Baljor were brothers. ( 3 ) IN brief, the prosecution case is that some Banjar land was allotted to Harijans of the village and on 15-8-1977 Kali Ram, Lekhpal of the village (C. W. 1) had come to demarcate the plots. In the south of the said Banjar land there is a Chak road and in the south of it is the Chak of the accused odh Singh. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, at that time the Pradhan of the village Sri Manphool Singh (P. W. 2) was also present. At about 6 P. M. when the measurement of plots No. 284 and 285 were being taken, Jodh Singh and Gyan Singh armed with Tabals, Kishan Pal armed with spear and Ram Kishan armed with lathi came there and told Bhopal Singh that they will not permit measurements of the land adjacent to their Chak. Bhopal Singh then told them that this land was allotted to the Harijans. Thereupon, Jodh Singh exhorted his sons that he had come to favour Harijans and he be done away with. Thereupon, the accused started assaulting with their weapons. Pradhan Manphool Singh (P. W. 2), Baboo Ram, one Bhopal Singh son of Khilara and others tried to save him. Bhopal Singh and Baljor complainant had received injuries. They first got themselves medically examined and Baljor lodged a written report at 10. 15 P. M. ( 5 ) THE F. I. R of the cross version was lodged at 3. 15 A. M. on 16. 8. 1977 by Brijpal Singh (Ex. Kha. 4 ). According to this report, at the time when the plots were demarcated Bhopal and others of the cross case objected to the demarcation of the plots. Jodha Singh, Gyan Singh and Krishan Pal objected to it. Thereupon, Bhopal Singh and others started to assault them with lath is causing injuries to them. 1977 by Brijpal Singh (Ex. Kha. 4 ). According to this report, at the time when the plots were demarcated Bhopal and others of the cross case objected to the demarcation of the plots. Jodha Singh, Gyan Singh and Krishan Pal objected to it. Thereupon, Bhopal Singh and others started to assault them with lath is causing injuries to them. On the basis of the cross F. I. R the accused of that case were tried in S. T. N. 870/77. ( 6 ) BALJOR complainant was murdered before the evidence was recorded in the case. The prosecution examined Sri Bhopal Singh (P. W. 1) and Manphool Singh (P. W. 2) about the occurrence. Dr. RR Tyagi (P. W. 3) had examined the injured and proved the injury report which show that two incised wounds, one punctured wound and one abrasion were found on the person of Bhopal Singh (P. W. 1) and one traumatic swelling, one incised wound and 4 contusion were on the person of Baljor. Head constable Charan Singh (P. W. 4) and S. I. Ganga Saran (P. W. 5) are formal witnesses. Constable Charan Singh had scribed F. I. R. S. I. Ganga Saran had investigated both the cases. Kali Ram was examined as Court witness. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to Jodh Singh, Krishan Pal and Gyan Singh, the incident had taken place in the manner given in the cross F. I. R. Ram Krishan accused denied presence on the spot. Her Pal Singh was examined as D. W. 1 regarding occurrence. Dr. S. K. Gupta was examined as D. W. 2. He found that Krishan Pal had crack fracture in the metacarpal bone of the right hand. Dr. R. R. Tyagi (P. W. 3) also proved injuries of Gyan Singh, Kishan Pal and Jodh Singh. According to the injury report of Gyan Singh he had one contusion with traumatic swelling and 5 contusions and one abraded contusion besides several abrasions. Kishan Pal had three traumatic swelling, one contusion besides several abrasions. Jodha Singh had two traumatic swelling, one contusion and one lacerated wound. ( 8 ) AFTER considering the evidence, material on record and circumstances of the case, learned Additional Sessions Judge found the prosecution case to be proved. Kishan Pal had three traumatic swelling, one contusion besides several abrasions. Jodha Singh had two traumatic swelling, one contusion and one lacerated wound. ( 8 ) AFTER considering the evidence, material on record and circumstances of the case, learned Additional Sessions Judge found the prosecution case to be proved. He accordingly convicted all the accused under sections 307/34 I. P. C. and 324/34 I. P. C. and sentenced them to three years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- on the first count and a fine of Rs. 250/- on the second count. He convicted Ram Kishan under section 323, I. P. C. and other accused under section 323/34 I. P. C. and sentenced each of them to a fine of Rs. 100/ -. ( 9 ) THERE is no dispute that Kali Ram Lekhpal (C. W. 1) was demarcating the plots in the land allotted to Harijans and at that time at about 6 P. M. an incident took place in which the complainant side received injuries. According to the defence version, they also received injuries at that time. This is supported by injury reports proved by Dr. RR. Tyagi, P. W. The contention by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the prosecution evidence is not worthy of reliance. P. W. 2 Manphool Singh is an interested witness and that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It has also been strenuously contended that three accused had also received injuries in the incident. In the F. I. R. there is no mention of their injuries. They have not been explained by the prosecution and as such there is in any case, a strong doubt about the prosecution case and the conviction is, therefore, bad. On the other hand learned Government Advocate and the learned counsel for the complainant have supported the conviction. It is also urged on their behalf that it is not in every case that the injuries of the accused invariably be explained by the prosecution. ( 10 ) THE first question for consideration is whether the accused had received injuries as given in the injury reports (Ext. Kha. l to Kha. 3 ). The learned Additional Sessions Judge while considering the injury reports of the accused side has observed that injuries have been manufactured for the purpose of this case. ( 10 ) THE first question for consideration is whether the accused had received injuries as given in the injury reports (Ext. Kha. l to Kha. 3 ). The learned Additional Sessions Judge while considering the injury reports of the accused side has observed that injuries have been manufactured for the purpose of this case. Suffice to say that injury No. 1 of Kishan Pal is traumatic swelling on the head regarding which Dr. had advised X-ray. Injury No. 12 of Gyan Singh is also on the head and injury No. 1 is contusion 8 x 1-1/2 on the left scapula region with traumatic swelling 9 x 5. Apart from it, Bhopal Singh (P. W. 1) and Manphool Singh (P. W. 2) have stated in the court that complainant side had also weilded lathis in his self defence. Thus, according to the case taken by the prosecution, the injured had also received injuries during the incident. Therefore, the inference that the injuries of the accused were manufactured for the purpose of the case cannot be accepted. From the medical evidence it is clear that three accused had also received a number of the injuries. In fact, a number of injuries received by the appellants, is much more than number of the injuries received by complainant side. The F. I. R. does not speak about the weilding of lath is in self defence by complainants side and that accused side had also received injuries at that time. It is for the first time that this case has been developed before the court. From the cross examination of these witnesses and the statement of the 1. 0. it is also clear that they had not even stated about this case of weilding lathi in the statements, under section 161, Cr. P. C. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that it is not necessary in each and every case that the prosecution should explain the injuries of the accused and as such even if it be taken that the injuries of the accused have not been explained by the prosecution, the prosecution case cannot be thrown on this ground. ( 11 ) NO doubt it is not necessary in each and every case for the prosecution to invariably explain the injuries of the accused and there may be cases where prosecution evidence is wholly reliable and creditable that non-explanation of the injuries of the accused may not create reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. In the case of Hare Krishna Singh and others. v. State of Bihar, the earlier case law on the point has been discussed in which it has been held: The obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence may not arise in each and every case. In other words, it is not an invariable rule that the prosecution has to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence. lqe burden of proving the guilt of the accused is undoubtedly on the prosecution. The accused is not bound to say anything in defence. The prosecution, has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. If the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are believed by the court in proof of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The question of the obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused will not arise. When the prosecution comes with a definite case that the offence has been committed by the accused and proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt, it become, hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain how and in what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on the person of the accused. When the prosecution comes with a definite case that the offence has been committed by the accused and proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt, it become, hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain how and in what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on the person of the accused. Referring to the case of Mohar Rai v. Stale of Bihar, it has been observed that non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the case of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the court can draw the following inferences: (1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and, therefore, their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to thrown doubt on the prosecution case. In the case of Bhaba Nanda Sarma v. State of Assam, it has been observed: the prosecution is not obliged to explain the injuries on the person of the accused in all cases and in all circumstances. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether the prosecution case becomes reasonably doubtful for its failure to explain the injuries on the accused. In the case of Mitter Sen and others v. State of U. P. , the accused appellants 2 and 3 had received injuries in the incident. The prosecution led evidence at the trial to explain how these injuries came to be received by these appellants. However, in the F. I. R. there was no explanation offered as to how those appellants came to receive injuries. It was observed that the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses in regard to the incident cannot, therefore, be accepted at its face value and it cannot be relied upon implicitly for the purpose of founding the conviction of the appellants. In the case of Ram Lakhan v. State, this Court found that appellant had also received injuries in the same occurrence. In the case of Ram Lakhan v. State, this Court found that appellant had also received injuries in the same occurrence. Regarding the effect of non-explanation of injuries of the accused by the prosecution it has been held that omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. Relying on the case of State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima, it has further been observed that there may be cases where the non-explanation of injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent so independent and disinterested that it far out weights the effect of omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. ( 12 ) IT is in the light of the principle laid down in the aforesaid cases that this question has to be considered. As discussed above, it is made out that three appellants received injuries in the same occurrence and that no-explanation was offered in the F. I. R. nor by Bhopal and Manphool Singh in their statements under section 161 Cr. P. C. It was for the first time they offered explanation stating that Baljor and other Bhopal son of Khilera had weilded lathis to protect Bhopal Singh and Baljor. Clearly enough the prosecution case in this regard is halfhearted. In the examination Dr. R. R. Tyagi (P. W. 3) said that injuries of the appellant could be fabricated/self suffered (Banwai Ja Sakti Hai ). According to this, suggestion the appellants had not received injuries at the time of the occurrence which in view of the above discussion cannot be accepted and is also inconsistent with the statement led in the trial that the lathis were weilded in self-defence. Therefore, the prosecution case regarding the injuries of the accused is inconsistent and uncertain. It goes to effect the credibility of the prosecution evidence. ( 13 ) SRI Bhopal Singh is an injured and interested witness. Manphool Singh is also an interested person and is inimical to the other side. Therefore, the prosecution case regarding the injuries of the accused is inconsistent and uncertain. It goes to effect the credibility of the prosecution evidence. ( 13 ) SRI Bhopal Singh is an injured and interested witness. Manphool Singh is also an interested person and is inimical to the other side. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has also found it did appear that Manphool Singh Pradhan has enmity with the accused persons. According to the F. I. R. there were other persons at the time of the incident but none of them were examined. This also goes against the prosecution Kali Ram Lekhpal (C. W. 1) who was called by the Court, was admittedly present on the spot when the marpit started. He had supported the defence version and not the prosecution. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not placed reliance on his testimony. Even if rightly, the fact remains that this independent witness does not support the genesis of the incident as alleged by the prosecution. On the other hand the defence has led evidence to support its case. Even if that evidence is not worthy of reliance, this would not help the prosecution much. From the above discussion it cannot be said that the prosecution evidence is impartial or disinterested or is such which inspires implicit reliance. In these circumstances, non- explanation of the injuries of the appellants does create weakness in the prosecution case. ( 14 ) IT is needless to stress that the onus of proof of criminal cases is much more on the prosecution than the onus on the plaintiff in a civil case. It may be that when both the parties lead evidence in civil cases, the question of onus of proof may not remain material. But in criminal cases even if defence also adduces evidence in support of its version and that evidence may not be reliable, question of burden will be on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In criminal case burden never shifts, though the burden may be on the accused to prove the same particular fact. In that case too defence has not to prove the same by conclusive evidence. In the instant case it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had weighed the evidence on both the sides and found the prosecution evidence better and therefore, he found the case to be proved. In that case too defence has not to prove the same by conclusive evidence. In the instant case it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had weighed the evidence on both the sides and found the prosecution evidence better and therefore, he found the case to be proved. In view of the above discussion the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants are entitled to acquittal. ( 15 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. Their conviction is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are on bail and need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed. .