G. D. DUBEY, J. The Third Additional. District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly has convicted and sentenced each of the appellants Jugal Kishore, Krishna Murari, Vinod Kumar and Ram Moorti under Section 307/34, I. P. C. and sentenced them to undergo to a term of two years R. I. Each of the above had further been held guilty, convicted and sentenced to six months R. I. under Section 323 read with Section 34, I. P. C. 2. Aggrieved by the above order, the present appeal has been filed. 3. A report was lodged by Sharda Prasad (P. W. 2) at 9. 50 a. m. at Police Station Nawabganj, district Bareilly, against the four appellants. It was alleged that Jugal Kishore appellant was working in the Ram Leela Com mittee of the locality. Jugal Kishore had asked his son Brijesh Chandra Sharma to work in the Committee. Brijesh Chandra Sharma refused to work for the Committee. Consequently, Jugal Kishore had threatened that he will kill Brij Kishore whenever he gets an opportunity. At about 9. 00 p. m. on 26. 10. 77. Brijesh Chandra and Rakesh Chandra were going for participa ting in a Kirtan. At that time, Jugal Kishore, Krishna Murari, Vinod Kumar and Ram Moorti came. Vinod Kumar and Ram Moorti started beating Rakesh Chandra with danda. Jugal Kishore and Krishna Murari inflicted knife blows to Brijesh Chandra. When Sharda Prasad proceeded to save his son, the appellants threw brick-bats towards him causing injuries on his right leg. The appellants continued threatening the father that they would kill him and also set his house on fire and loot the property. Hearing the alarm of victims, Jagdish Chandra Gupta and several other persons arrived and thereafter the assailants ran away. After the occurrence, Sharda Prasad Sharma went to the police station and lodged the report. 4. The investigation had been taken by Megh Singh (P. W. 4 ). He interrogated Sharda Prasad Verma, Brijesh Chandra and Rakesh Chandra. Biijesh Chandra, Rakesh Chandra and Sharda Prasad Verma had been sent to Primary Health Centre, Nawabganj for medical examination. Rakesh Chandra was examined by Dr. S. M. Gupta (P. W. 1) at 10. JU p. m. The doctor found the following injuries on his person. (1) Contusion 3 cm. x l 1/2 cm. on right side of forehead about 1 cm. above the root of nose from glabella. (2) Abrasion 1 cm. Rakesh Chandra was examined by Dr. S. M. Gupta (P. W. 1) at 10. JU p. m. The doctor found the following injuries on his person. (1) Contusion 3 cm. x l 1/2 cm. on right side of forehead about 1 cm. above the root of nose from glabella. (2) Abrasion 1 cm. x 1 cm. on right side of forehead about 1 1/2 cm. above the glabella. (3) Abrasion 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. on the middle of bridge of nose. All injuries are simple and caused by blunt object and duration fresh. 5. Sharda Prasad Sharma was examined at 11. 15 p. m. on 26. 10. 1977. Only one injury i. e. abrasion 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. on dorsum of right foot about 7. 5 cm. out to medial malleous of right foot was found. This injury was opined to be simple caused by blunt object and fresh in duration. 6. Brijesh Chandra had been examined by the doctor at 12. 45 a. m. on 27. 10. 1977. The following incised wounds were found on his person : - (1) Incised wound 1. 5 cm. x 5 cm. at left side back of chest with swelling in an area of 8 cm. x 5 cm. x 2 cm. deep at left axilla. Under observation. (2) Incised wound 1 cm. x 8 cm. x Abdominal cavity deep x left side of abdomen. 13 cm. below the unbilicus at 4 Oclock position. Under observation. (3) Incised wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x 2 cm. deep at 11 cm. below injury No. 2. (4) Incised wound 2 cm. x 2. 5 cm. at right back ocupulla region. 7. The doctor had kept injuries 1 and 2 under observation. The rest were opined to be simple caused by sharp edged weapon. The doctor had written in the injury report (Ext. Ka 11) that the injuries were fresh in duration. 8. At the police station, Megh Singh had received an information that the appellants were running away. Hence he chased them and arrested them at 11 p. m. near Hajiganj on 26. 10. 1977 and brought them to Police Station Nawabganj. Out of these arrested persons, Jugal Kishore was injured. He was sent to Primary Health Centre, Nawabganj. Dr. S. M. Gupta had examined the injuries of Jugal Kishore at 9. 3u a. m. oon 27. 10. 1977. 10. 1977 and brought them to Police Station Nawabganj. Out of these arrested persons, Jugal Kishore was injured. He was sent to Primary Health Centre, Nawabganj. Dr. S. M. Gupta had examined the injuries of Jugal Kishore at 9. 3u a. m. oon 27. 10. 1977. The dactor had found the following injuries on his person : - (1) Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. on the left parietal bone about 7 cm. above the left pinnae in oblique direction. (2) Contusion 8 cm. x 2 cm. on lateral aspect 1 ft left arm 14 cm. above the lateral condyle of humerus. (3) Contusion on the abrasion 17 cm. x 5 cm. on the left elbow joint to middle of left forearm on lateral aspect. Advised X-ray of left forearm. (4) Contusion 2 cm. x 2 cm. on the base of nail bed of right index finger. (5) Abraded contusion 1 cm. x 1 cm. on palmer aspect of 2nd Phalanx of right index finger. (6) Contusion 5 cm. x 5 cm. on palmer aspect of 1st Phalanx of left finger. (7) C. O. pain of medial malleous of left leg. (8) C. O. Pain of left side of chest. All injuries are simple and caused by blunt object and duration loss than half day. 9. Sharda Prasad Sharma was examined at 11. 15 p. m. of 26. 10,1977. Only one injury i. e. abrasion 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. of dorsum of right foot about 7. 5 cm. out to medial malleous of right foot about was found. This injury was opined to be simple caused by blunt object and fresh in duration. 10. The Investigation Officer proceeded to the place of occurrence on 27. 10. 1977. He inspected to the site and took blood-stained and plain earth in his possession and prepared a memo. He interrogated other witnesses and after arrest of the accused had submitted charge-sheet against the appellants on 11. 11. 1977. 11. The father of Jugal Kishore had lodged a report at Police Station Nawabganj at 2. 13 a. m. on 27. 10. 1977. A case was registered at 2. 15 a. m. 12. The prosecution had examined five witnesses. Out of them Dr. S. M. Gupta (P. W. 1) had examined the injuries of Rakesh Chand and Sharda Prasad Verma. Sharda Prasad (P. W. 2) and Brijesh Chandra and eye-witnesses. 13 a. m. on 27. 10. 1977. A case was registered at 2. 15 a. m. 12. The prosecution had examined five witnesses. Out of them Dr. S. M. Gupta (P. W. 1) had examined the injuries of Rakesh Chand and Sharda Prasad Verma. Sharda Prasad (P. W. 2) and Brijesh Chandra and eye-witnesses. Megh Singh (P. W. 4) is the Investigating Officer. Dr. R. E. Agarwal (P. W. 5) had examined the injuries of Brijesh Chandra Sharma, one C. W. 1 Brij Pal Singh Constable was examined as a court witness. He had proved the lodging of the report. 13. The accused had pleaded not guilty to the charges. He had put forward a counter version. He stated that when he came from his house to the place of Kirtan he found that exchange of words was taking place between Awadhesh and Ram Autar. On the intervention of Jugal Kishore, Ram Autar stopped quarrelling. Meanwhile samebody informed the family mem bers of Awadhesh. Consequently, Sharda Prasad and Brijesh armed with lathis and Rakesh armed with knife arrived at the spot. All these persons attacked Jugal Kishore and caused injuries to him. He stated that he had defended himself by snatching a lathi of some villager. When he had gone to the police station, the police authorities asked him to first of all got his injuries medically examined. Hence he was going in a taxi to Bareilly when he was arrested near Hafizganj. The other appellants had also pleaded not guilty to the charges. They had alleged that they had been implicated on account of enmity. 14. The accused had examined D. W. 1 Narendra Deo Mani Tripathi, a Compounder of Primary Health Centre, Nawabganj He had proved the injury report prepared by Dr. S. M. Gupta. D. W. 2 is Ram Autar. D. W. 3 Rajendra Kumar Shukla and Ram Narain had -stated about the defence version of the occurrence. 15. The learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution story. He held that the defence version was found concocted. Consequently the appel lants were held guilty of the offence under Sections 304 and 323,i. P. C. 16. Only one point has been argued before me. It was urged that admittedly Jugal Kishore had lacerated and contused wounds. 15. The learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution story. He held that the defence version was found concocted. Consequently the appel lants were held guilty of the offence under Sections 304 and 323,i. P. C. 16. Only one point has been argued before me. It was urged that admittedly Jugal Kishore had lacerated and contused wounds. It was not at all probable that the prosecution witnesses would have failed to notice the lacerated wounds on the person of Jugal Kishore from which blood must have been oozing out at the time of occurrence. Since the prosecution has not explained the injuries of Jugal Kishore, then their case ought to be disbelieved. On the other hand, the defence version of causing injuries to the prosecution witnesses in self-defence should be believed. 17. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution had not explained the injuries of Jugal Kishore appellant who bad a lacerated wound on the left parietal bone above the left pinnae. His injuries had been got examined by the police soon after his arrest. The doctor had opined that the injuries could be caused at the alleged date and time of occurrence. There were six visible injuries. Keeping in view these injuries, blood must have oozing from injury No. 1 of Jugal Kishore. In such a circumstance, it was essential for the prosecution to have explained the injuries of Jugal Kishore. The explanation has not come forward from the side of tha prosecution at the time of first information report. The explanation was given by Sharda Prasad in his examination-in-chief before the lower court. 18. Brijesh Chandra (P. W. 3) had not stated in his examination-in-chief or cross-examination that his father Sharda Prasad had wielded any lathi or danda in the defence of his son (Brijesh Chandra) and others. 19. The motive for the occurrence also appears to be very weak. It was stated that as Brijesh Chandra had refused to work in the Ram Leela, the appellants had planned to attempt to commit his murder. It does not appear probable that for such a trivial affair such a serious offence would be arranged. Moreover, the time and place of occurrence allegedly choosen by the assai lants was not such which could have been selected for committing a crime. Admittedly, there were several people at the time of Kirtan. It does not appear probable that for such a trivial affair such a serious offence would be arranged. Moreover, the time and place of occurrence allegedly choosen by the assai lants was not such which could have been selected for committing a crime. Admittedly, there were several people at the time of Kirtan. Hence any body planning to make an attempt of murder would not choose a place near the site of Kirtan where people had assembled and there was every danger of the appellant being arrested on the spot. 20. The defence had examined Ram Autar (D. W. 2), Rajendra Kumar Shukla (D. W. 3) and Ram Narain (D. W. 4) in support of the defence version of the occurrence. According to these witnesses, the Marpit had started on the demand of the diary of Kirtan by Ram Autar (D. W. 2) from Awadesh. Awadesh had refused to return the diary. On this refusal hot words were exchanged between the two i. e. Ram Autar and Awadhesh and thereafter a Marpit ensued between the parties. This was a probable story. The defence witnesses have stated that Jugal Kishore had snatched the lathi of some of the assailants and had caused injuries to the prosecution witness. 21. The above factors go to show that the prosecution version is not the correct version. It is a well thought of version. It has been argued by learned counsel for the prosecution that the report was lodged just twenty minutes of the occurrence. Hence there was no possibility of any consultation and concoction of a version before the lodging of the report. The place of occurrence was situated at a distance of two furlongs from the police station. Amongst the injured, Brijesh Chandra had an incised on the left side back of chest and on abdomi nal region. It looks very strange that despite four injuries on the above two sites, the father Sharda Prasad was so prompt that he got the first information report written and took the injured and the report to the police station. Sharda Prasad himself has admitted that he was very annious about his son and as he had received injuries he was not in a position to write the first information report himself. Sharda Prasad himself has admitted that he was very annious about his son and as he had received injuries he was not in a position to write the first information report himself. In such a situation some time would have been consumed in collecting the writing material dictating the report, signing it and then taking the written report along with injured to the police station. With ail means of facilities and opened the report itself could not have been written within twenty minutes and the injured and the report taken to the police-station. Mere promptness in lodging of the report can be no ground for believing that the report was lodged without any consultation or deliberation. If from the circumstances on record it transpires that in a particular situation the report could not be lodged within the time elapsing between the occureeno and the report, then such a report ought to be viewed with suspicion. The report in this case is of such a character and cannot be relied upon. 22. From the above discussion, it transpires that the prosecution is not coming with correct facts. Testing the two versions in the crucible of proba bilities, the story put forward by the defence appears to be more plausible and probable. The prosecution has tried to explain the injuries of the defence at a very late stage. It is not probable that with the help of a small danda Sharda Prosad would have been able to inflict six injuries on the person of Jugal Kishore. 23. In State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatma, AIR 1975 SC 1482 the Supreme Court had laid down the following principle where the prosecution had failed to explain the injuries of the defence in the following words : - "when the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the person of the accused, depending on the facts of each case, and of the three results may follow : - - (1) The accused had inflicted injuries on the members of the pro secution party in exercise of the right of self-defence. (2) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence very doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (3) It does not affect the prosecution case at all. 24. (2) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence very doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (3) It does not affect the prosecution case at all. 24. It has been noticed above that the prosecution case in this case does not appear to be probable. The prosecution has failed to explain the injuries on the person of Jugal Kishore. In this situation, the first consequence follows that the injuries on the injured on the side of prosecution had been inflicted in self-defence. The deft-nee witnesses have stated about the presence of a knife at the time of marpit during Kirtan. The injuries on Brijesh Chandra by incised weapons also stands fully explained. Keeping in view the number of injuries on the injured of the prosecution side the defence cannot be said to have exceeded in the exercise of his right of private defence. The prosecution version is also not very reliable. I find that the lower court had erred in holding the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 337/34, I. P. C. The lower court ought to have rejected the prosecution version and acquitted the appellants. 25. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the lower court are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal allowed. .