Honble V.S. DAVE, J. — The facts leading to these appeals & revision demonstrate as to how the criminal courts are used for working the vengeance and personal vendetta. The State as well as the complainant Bhagwat Prasad approached this Court praying that 23 accused respondents in these cases-be convicted and sentenced for offences under Sec. 147, 452, 302/149 IPC etc. and the acquittal recorded in their favour by the trial Court vide judgment dated 5-4-89 be set aside, while four accused appellants in SB Criminal Appeal No. 304/89 Hansraj Tara Chand, Hari Ram and Mool Chand challenged their conviction for offence under Sec. 323 IPC. After being convicted under section 323 I.P.C. they had been given benefit of probation under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. 2. On 1st July 1985 Bhagwat Prasad (PW1) lodged a report at Police Station Kherthal district Alwar at 1 !.30 P.M. where in it was alleged by him that at about 8.30 p.m. all the 23 accused formed an unlawful assembly and trespassed in his house. He and other members of his family were taking meal at that time. Accused started abusing and Mool Chand gave a lathi blow on his head. Hansraj gave a blow on the head of Hari Ram. Udairam was inflicted injury by Tara Chand, Mahadevi by Tara Chand and all the accused caused injuries by lathi, kicks and fist. Litigation was going on between the parties since long and there was enmity. He stated that the fight was still going on and he having found out an opportunity, had escaped to lodged the report. Panna Mali and other has arrived at the spot. On receipt of this report, a case under Sec-tions 147, 148, 149, 323 and 452 IPC was registered. One Smt Santosh w/o Sohan Lal aged 30 years was admitted in General Hospital, Alwar on the night intervening between 1.07.1985 as a case of pregnancy with blunt injury on abdomen. She was shifted to Janana Hospital on 2 7-85 where on the evening between 4/5.07.1985 she aborted dead female foetus of about 28 weeks. Her condition worsened and she expired on the morning of 6.07.1985 and the case was altered on one under Sec. 302 IPC. Police, after investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against as many as 23 accused, all named in the FIR. Her condition worsened and she expired on the morning of 6.07.1985 and the case was altered on one under Sec. 302 IPC. Police, after investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against as many as 23 accused, all named in the FIR. Hansraj and Tara Chand were read over charges for offences under Sec. 302 IPC simp licitor along with other offences while rest of the accused were charged for offence under Sec. 302/149 inter alia other offences. 3. Prosecution examined 18 witnesses in support of its case. Accused denied the prosecution story and submitted that it was the complainant party who came to beat him and inflicted injuries on the person of some of the accused who had thrown stones in exercise of right of private defence. 4. The learned trial Judge found the prosecution story to be highly doubtful and acquitted all the accused-appellants for all the offences except four, who have been convicted for offence under Section 323 IPC and were given the benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. It is this judgment which is under challenge. 5. As all the three cases arises out of the same judgment, they are being disposed of by this one judgment. 6. Bhagwat Prasad (PW 1) is a Teacher, who had gone to lodge the report and stated therein that while he had come to lodge the report the fight was still going on and he had managed to escape some how or the other and have corns running to lodge the report. He maintains the same in his statement except making an amendment that 5-6 persons has entered the house and they were Tara Chand, Mool Chand, Hans Raj, Hari Ram and Lakhpat. This witness has not mentioned a word either in the FIR or in his statement in the court about the injury having been inflicted to Mst. Santosh, the deceased by any of the accused. Even there is no mention of her sustaining the injuries in the incident. He then states that he got the report lodged after reaching Police Station Kherthal by one person whose name he does not know. This witness is a rank lier as after the incident had been over, he went to the office of his counsel Shri Duli Chand Mishra (DWl). According to him, he got the report written in the Police Station. This witness is a rank lier as after the incident had been over, he went to the office of his counsel Shri Duli Chand Mishra (DWl). According to him, he got the report written in the Police Station. He does not want to tell the name of even the person in whose tractor he had gone to the police station. He then stated that he was immediately sent to Kherthal Hospital. He has been confronted with various portions of his report to which also he has denied. According to him, all the accused were armed with lathis. He however, admitted that KanhaiyaLal accused had instituted a suit against him and members of the complainant party which had been decreed. He further denied that they have been restrained from going on this place of occurrence. According to him, ADJ had gone to the spot. He then stated that it is wrong that there is any judgment against his party. The judgment is in their favour and then again stated that suit has been decreed by the Munsif but they have filed an appeal against it. The witness is not consistent on any part of his statement and was put entire case of right of private defence in his cross-examination to which he denied. He was asked that complainant party was obstructing the right of way of the accused-persons, which was objected to and complainant party inflicted injuries on accused Kishan, Fateh Singh, Hariram and Mool Chand. He admitted that there was a cross case against them of the same incident, which is still pending and further that Santosh was having 7 to 8 months pregnancy. 7. Babu Lal (PW 2) arrived at the house of complainant Bhagwat Prasad after he heard cries and there he saw that Tara Chand, Hariram, Hansraj and Mool Chand had been inflicting injuries. Tara Chand was caught by Santosh to whom Hansraj had given lathi blow in the stomach. Tara Chand gave a kick in her stomach. There after, she was taken to Hospital where she died. House of this witness is about 1 or 2 furlong away and according to him when he rea-ched there, Bhagwat was not there. He then stated that accused were thro-wing stones from out side and then admitted that Hariram and Bhagwat had told him about the injuries caused to Santosh, which he mentioned in his police statement. House of this witness is about 1 or 2 furlong away and according to him when he rea-ched there, Bhagwat was not there. He then stated that accused were thro-wing stones from out side and then admitted that Hariram and Bhagwat had told him about the injuries caused to Santosh, which he mentioned in his police statement. This witness too is not worthy of any reliance. Firstly, he could not have even heard the cries, if he had been staying at 1 or 2 furlong away as he was at his own residence and secondly, the number of injuries sustained by the accused and particularly deceased could not have taken as much time as the witness had shown for arriving there. Besides this, according to his own police statements he had given the statement as the story was narrated by Hariram and Bhagwat, 8. Hatiram (PW 3) is an injured eye witness, who was sleeping in his own Nohra where his elder brother came at about 8 or 8.30 P.M. and Santosh deceased was cleaning the untensils. At that time, accused Hansraj, Tara Chand Mool Chand and Hariram came where an enclosure (Lashai) has been made. They starting pelting stones and demolishing the compound on which they were told not to do so, on this Hansraj caught him. Santosh came out, who was called by Mool Chand and Tara Chand. Hariram and Hansraj caused injuries by lathies Babu Lal and Udairam also arrived, who too were beaten. This witness has admitted that case is going on about this enclosure being made in which they have lost the case in lower court but they obtained stay in appeal. When the stay was obtained, he does not know. This enclosure is near the plateform. When these persons came, he had asked them not to demolish it. According his police statement, the incident has taken place on his Chabutrara to which he denied in the court. The witness has admitted that he has not mentioned regard ing Santosh being caught by Hansraj in his police statement and further that he had not given any statement to police prior to death of Santosh. He too was put the case of right of private defence in cross-examination to which he refused. 9. The witness has admitted that he has not mentioned regard ing Santosh being caught by Hansraj in his police statement and further that he had not given any statement to police prior to death of Santosh. He too was put the case of right of private defence in cross-examination to which he refused. 9. House of Udairam (PW 4) is about 10 houses away from the house where the incidenth ad taken place, who also arrived on hearing the cries. Accor-ding to him Hansraj and Hariram were baating another Hariram complainant. Santosh also arrived on the spot and Moolchand caught her. Tara Chand gave a kick and Hansraj a lathi blow. He also was given an injury by Rohtash. Accor-ding to him rest of the accused were standing out side. They were armed or not he was unable to say. The witness was confronted on various parts of his police statement to which he denied and then stated that since the incident had taken place 5 years before he has forgotton everything which statement is false because the incident took place in July, 1987 and the statement were recorded in June, 1988 which is less than one year. He then came with an explanation that he had become unconscious so he knows nothing. He even denies the pendency of the cross-cases.. 10. Similar is the statement of Khyaliram who too stated that Santosh came to intervene, who was caught by Mool Chand and Tara Chand and Hans raj inflicted injuries. He also came to intervenue and sustained injuries. He was caused injuries by Ram Singh and Lakhpat. According to him 14 accused were standing out side and seven came inside the house. He denied his police statement about 9 persons being inside the house. He stated that a child had told him that Bhagwat ran away when the incident was going on. He mentioned in his statement about Santosh vomitting blood which he did not mention in his police statement. He admitted in his cross-examination that incident took place because enclosure was being broken and there was pelting of stones. He has admitted that he has not mentioned about the injuries being caused to Santosh in his police statement and further admitted about the cross-cases pending against them. He also admitted that land dispute has been decided against them but it has been stayed in appeal. He has admitted that he has not mentioned about the injuries being caused to Santosh in his police statement and further admitted about the cross-cases pending against them. He also admitted that land dispute has been decided against them but it has been stayed in appeal. From the statement of this witness, it is established that the incident did not take place in the manner mentioned by Bhagwat or in the FIR and that he is not a witness to the injury being caused to Santosh as the same has not been stated by him in the police statement. 11. Mahadevi (P.W. 6) is also an injured, who has stated that Hansraj gave two lathi blows on Santosh and Tara Chand a kick but she also admits that she has not given this statement to the police and that when she arrived there, incident was going on as certain persons, who were breaking the enclosure and pelting stones. 12. This is all the evidence about the incident and there is not a single witness whose statement is worthy of reliance and they have been rightly disbeleved by the trial Court. It may also be observed here that Duli Chand Mishra (DWl)who is an advocate has stated that he is the scribe of Ex. P. 1,.FIR, and the whole of it, except the signatures of Bhagwat, is in his hand writing. According to him, Bhagwat Prasad, Teacher, came to his residence at 9.30 P.M. and he took down the report as stated by Bhagwat Prasad. He then handed over the report to him which he lodged at the police station. This fact not only makes the statement of Bhagwat unreliable but also that there was due deliberation before the report was lodged. Bhagwat Prasad himself is a literate person and is a Teacher and yet he did not write it in his own hand writing and get it scribed by a lawyer which fact not only omits to mention in the FIR but had the audicity to deny the fact in the fact in the cross-examination. He even go to the extent of stating that he does know the person who is the scribe of the report when Duli Chand has clearly stated that Bhagwat Prasad known to him even since his birth. 13. He even go to the extent of stating that he does know the person who is the scribe of the report when Duli Chand has clearly stated that Bhagwat Prasad known to him even since his birth. 13. There is one more aspect of the matter which requires to be mentioned here, that is, the injuries sustained by deceased Santosh According to Dr. P.S. Agrawal (PW16), who was Medico Legal Jurist in General Hospital, Alwar, where Mst. Santosh was admittsd on 2-7-85 since there was no female Surgeon at night available so she was referred to Janana Hospital next morning where she aborted a female child in dead state. Patients condition was also bad, According to his statement, she died on 6-7-85 and he conducted the post-mort-em. According to the post mortem report there was one bruise on her abdomen and on opening, he found sub-cutanecus and musculars blood clots under this external injury. According to his opinion, death occured due to blunt injury on abdoment with injury to uterus, and abortion with haemorrahage and shock which was ante mortem. In cross-examination, the witnesses has stated that what was the codition of Smt. Santosh prior to 5.07.1985 he did not know. She was also not unconscious. She was very week and anaemic. The bruise could be caused by a stone or even if she would have fell down. He admitted that he did not examine the foetus after abortion, which was got down. He stated that it cannot be denied that in cases of injuries in case of advance pregnancy receiving of injury on the foetus cannot be denied. 14. Thus, the story of three injuries having been caused by lathis and kicks is not corroborated by medical evidence, may be that she might injured or fell down resulting in abortion and consequently to death because the foetus dies inside. 15. Thus, we find that there is no case for interference with the order of acquittal of and does not warrant for interference. We are in agreement with the findings arrived by the trial Court and the State appeal as well as the complainant revision, therefore, have no force. 16. Coming to the appeal filed by the accused, it may be mentioned that there are few important factors which required to be taken note of. Accused as well as the complainant party are living adjacent. 16. Coming to the appeal filed by the accused, it may be mentioned that there are few important factors which required to be taken note of. Accused as well as the complainant party are living adjacent. Their houses are adjoining and at right angle, according to the site inspection memo prepared and proved by the witnesses and the Investigating officer. In the open chowk, there is a common well from which both the parties take out water. Accused persons claim right of way on the western side of the well. The complainant party intended to obstruct it by making an enclosure for keeping the cattle. A civil suit in this respect was pending which prior to the incident had been decided in favour of the accused-persons. This fact has deliberately been with held by the prosecution for reasons best known. The Investigating Officer did not go in to this aspect of the matter which was most essential It is borne out from the record that stones had been lying and she tried to put obstruction during night hours despite their loosing the case and accused persons had a right to restrain them from doing so. It is also borne out from the record that accused Fateh Singh sustained one lacerated wound 3" x 1/4" x1/4" on the left parietal region. Ex.D. 7, is the injury report of Roop Kala who sustained incised wound l"xl/10xl/10" on left side chin and bruise 3" x 1" on left leg. The incised wound was caused by a sharp edged weapon. Hari Ram accused sustained one lacerated wound 2" long on his left perietal regin and one bruise 3" long on his lumber region. Mool Chand accused sustained one lacerated wound 3 1/2" long on his left parietal region & another lacerated wound 2 1/4" long on his right parietal region. Accused Kishan had sustained one incised wound by sharp edged weapon. Thus, as many as five accused parsons had sustained injuries, who had been medically examined on the same day at 10.0 P.M. by the same doctor who had examined the injuries on the persons of the complainant party. The injuries sustained by the accused person show that they have been caused both of blunt weapon as well as by sharp edged weapon and have been inflicted on vital parts such as perietal region and face also. The injuries sustained by the accused person show that they have been caused both of blunt weapon as well as by sharp edged weapon and have been inflicted on vital parts such as perietal region and face also. These injuries have neither been explained by the complainant party nor according to them have been received by the accused and obviously the witnesses are giving a false statement. Thus, both for the genesis of the story as well as for sustaining the injuries by the accused-person is with held which is fatal to the prosecution case and even if the simple injuries were caused by them they are entitled to do so after being succeeded in the suit and in restraining the accused complaintant party from obstructing their right of way. We need not mention the case in this respect as by a catena of cases their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that in situations like this, the complainant party intended to obstruct the right of way at a odd hour and it is not possible for the accused to go there at the point of time to have recourse of law. They are within the irright to stop the mis- chief. In the instant case of the defence is even brone out by the prosecutions own story and the investigation documents and we have no hesitation in accepting the appeal filed by the accused which though had been filed after period of limitation, but the delay was condoned. \ 17. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the State Appeal No. 39/90 and the complainants revision No. 215/89 are dismissed. The criminal appeal No. 304/89 Hansraj v. State of Rajasthan is allowed and the conviction of the accused appellant Hansraj, Tara Chand, Hariram and Mool Chand is set aside. 18. Before we conclude, we would like to make certain observations in this case as the complainants role in this case has shocked our conscious. 23 persons had been dragged in, in this case soon after that the complainants had made all complaints about the pendency of these cases to the employers of some of the accused, who are in service. One of the accused viz., Lakhpat Raj Saini, who was a Hockey Coach at Netaji Subhash National Sport College, Patiyala, lost his job due to the pendency of this case. One of the accused viz., Lakhpat Raj Saini, who was a Hockey Coach at Netaji Subhash National Sport College, Patiyala, lost his job due to the pendency of this case. Similarly, the services of Lilaram, who was serving with CRPF, Parlipuram, Trivendram has also been terminated on 24 .05.1989. Two of the accused Tara Chand and Hariram are teachers. Both of them had been convicted for offence under Sec. 323 IPC. They have not been reinstated despite the fact that they had not been convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude and besides, were given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. The reason given in the order of District Education Officer, Alwar was that Additional Public Prosecutor-cum-Government Advocate. Kish-angarhbas has advised him accordingly. A certified copy of letter No. 265 dated 13-6-85 written by Additional Public Prosecutor-cum-Government Advocate, Kishangarhbas has been placed on record wherein he has written to the District Education Officer that two accused Tara Chand & Hariram had been convicted by Additional Sessions Judge for offence under Sec. 325 IPC and since they have been convicted for substantive offence and State has also decieed to file an appeal, they should not be reinstated in service till the case is decided from the High Court. This is most unfortunate, it is not the duty of the Additional Public Prosecutor to advise like, that and then by mis-representing the facts. Accused had been convicted for offence under Sec. 323 IPC and had been given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and this fact has not been mentioned in the letter and has been deliberately withheld. The letter clearly shows that this has been written at the behest of the complainants and that shows the bias of the Public Prosecutor against the accused-persons, whose service could not be utilised by the State but for the wrong advised tendered. Even if Sec. 325 IPC" is a clerical error in the letter written by him then too he did not mention about the accused having been dealt with under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act and had no business to advise that they should be continued in suspension. He had not only transgressed the jurisdiction vested in him but had acted beyond his powers. He had not only transgressed the jurisdiction vested in him but had acted beyond his powers. His conduct has not left a happy impression on us and we think it proper to sent the copy of this judgment to the Director, Prosecution to make an enquiry in to this affair and issue instructions of the Public Prosecutor defining their duties and take such suitable action as he deems proper in this case, of course, after notice to the person concerned.