Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. These two criminal appeals arise out of a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12th November, 1986 passed by Shri anirudh Prasad Chaudhary, 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, arrah in Sessions Trial No.334 of 1985. 2. In Criminal Appeal No.567 of 1986, there are 14 appellant whereas in Cr. Appeal No.582 of 1986, Ram Sakai Singh is the sole appellant. 3. By reason of the aforementioned judgment, the learned court below convicted and sentenced the appellants as follows :- (i) All the appellants sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Sec.302/149 of the Indian Penal code. (ii) All the appellants sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment under section 307/149. (iii) Appellants Lalan Singh, Nirmal Singh, Hirday Singh were further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment under Sec.148 of the Indian Penal Code. Bipin Singh was also sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment under Sec.324 of the indian Penal Code. (iv) Rajendra Singh and Baban Singh were sentenced to one months rigorous imprisonment each under Sec.323 of the Indian penal Code and rest of the appellants (Dwarika Singh), mithlesh Kumar Singh, Ramashish Singh Sharda Singh, Surendra kumar Singh Kailash Singh and Bahadur Singh have further been sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Ram Sakal Singh, the solo appellant in criminal appeal No.522/86 has been convicted for commission of an offence under section 302 of the indian Penal Code, Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code, Sec.27 of the arms Act as also under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life, rigorous imprisonment seven years and rigorous imprisonment one year, respectively. 5. The appellants aforementioned were tried along with one Navlakh singh Appellant in Criminal Appeal No 21/87 who died during pendency of this appeal. The said appeal thus stood abated. Some others persons viz Birendra Singh, Nawal Promod Singh, Indrakumar Singh and Ramdhani singh also stood their trial alongwith the appellants, but they have been acquitted by the learned court below. 6. The prosecution case, in short, is as follows:- On 19.10.1984 at about 11.30 A. M. the informant Brahamdeo Singh (P. W.11) gave a fardbeyan before the Officer-incharge of arrah Sadar Police Station alleging inter alia therein that at 8 a. m. on the same day Ram Chandra Singh (deceased) was irrigating his field by canal water. 6. The prosecution case, in short, is as follows:- On 19.10.1984 at about 11.30 A. M. the informant Brahamdeo Singh (P. W.11) gave a fardbeyan before the Officer-incharge of arrah Sadar Police Station alleging inter alia therein that at 8 a. m. on the same day Ram Chandra Singh (deceased) was irrigating his field by canal water. Allegedly as the land of the deceased was on a higher level from the karha, the water of karha was not flowing down to the field of the deceased. A don was therefore, fixed at the mouth of Karha for lifting in water therefrom in order to make its Sow in the fields of the deceased. One Jitram Singh was working on the Don and was lifting water from the Karha while Ram Chandra Singh was in his field and Jatiram Singh who was working at the Don was at a distance of about 40 yards from the field of Ram Chandra singh. In the meantime the accused persons named by him alongwith few others came there variously armed, viz lathis, farhsas, Bhalas, Garasa and guns and asked Ramchandra Singh to stop irrigating the filed from the Karha. On his refusal, kailash Singh exorted the other accused persons to assault Ram chandra Singh as a result of which Navlakh Singh (since deceased)allegedly fired a shot upon Ramchandra Singh who on receiving the injury fell down in the adjacent field belonging to mahipal Singh Thereafter, appellant Bahadur Singh exhorted the accused persons to kill Ramchandra Singh as he was not dead. It is further alleged that on the basis of his instigation, the appellant Ramsakal Singh fired upon Ram Chandra singh, who again was hit by the shot fired by Ramsakal. Allegedly Jatiram Singh, Surendra Singh, Tribhuvan Singh, dinanath Singh and few others went near Ramchandra Singh in order to save him, but they were also fired upon by Nawlakh singh and Ramsakal S ingh as a result of which Surendra Singh received gun shot injuries by the shots fired by Nawlakh Singh while others, namely Jatiram Singh, Tribhuwan Singh and Dinanath Singh injured by gun shots fired by Ramsakal singh. It is further the case of the prosecution that Brahamdeo Singh (the informant) came at the end of the occurrence and it is alleged that one of the accused Bipin Singh gave him a Farsa blow by which he received out Injury between him right thumb and index finger. Rajendra Singh and Baban Singh allegedly assaulted Vijoy Kumar Singh by means of lathi. Thereafter all the accused persons are said to have filed away. Subsequently ram Chandra Singh and other injured persons were moved to Sahar State Dispensary, where Sabar Police recorded the fardbeyan of Brahamdeo Singh. The condition of Ram chandra Singh became serious and so he was referred to Arrah sadar Hospital from Sahar Mate Dispensary and from there, he was further referred to P. M. C H. , where he succumbed to his injuries on the following day, i. e. on 20.10 1984. 7 It appears from the records that on the same day another first information report was lodged by Nawlakh Singh (since deceased) which was registered as Sahar P. S Case No.152/1984. The said fardbeyan was marked as exhibit c. The fardbeyan in respect of the said case was made at 10 45 on 19.10 1984 on the basis whereof a case against Gopal Saran Singh, surendra Singh, Dilip Singh, Jaineshwar Singh, Bisundeo Singh, Surendra singh, Cyan Cband Singh, Bisundeo Singh, EKH Nath Singh, Jagdamba Singh birendra Singh; Yogendra Singh, Jatiram Singh, Chakeshwar Singh, Awdesh singh, Nirmal Singh, Dinanath Singh, Janardan Singh, Ramnath Singh, ram Sahary Singh, Lal Bahadur Singh, Jagdish Singh Trivuan Singh, sachinand Singh, Mahipal Singh, Nasiba Singh, Triloki Singh, Harihar Singh, ramtapkiya Singh, Baijnath Singh, Kedar Singh. Jatram Singh, Ramsakal singh. Brahmdeo Singh (P. W.11) was recorded. It was inter alia alleged therein that an incident took place with regard to irrigation of land and In course whereof Brahmadeo Singh fired a shot which had hit Birendra Kumar singh whereafter he also in his self-defence fired shots. According to the said first information report whereas Brahamdeo Singh and his parties fired 20-25 shots, only 3, 4 gun shots were fired from bis side. In the said fardbeyan the name of the persons who had received injuries had also been mentioned. 8. The prosecution in support of its case examined 18 witnesses. P. W. I Uma Shankar Singh is a formal witness. P. W.2 Jagdamba singh has been tendered. P. W.12 Dr. In the said fardbeyan the name of the persons who had received injuries had also been mentioned. 8. The prosecution in support of its case examined 18 witnesses. P. W. I Uma Shankar Singh is a formal witness. P. W.2 Jagdamba singh has been tendered. P. W.12 Dr. R. B. Choudhary, conducted autopsy on the deceased Ram Chandra Singh P. W.13 is Doctor Upendra prasad Himanshu who examined the injured persons on 19.10.1984 both from the sides of the prosecution as also from the side of the accused persons. P W.16 A. J. Kamal is the Investigating officer. P W 14 Alakhdeo singh is also a Police Officer who had referred the injured prosecution witnesses to the Hospital. P. W 17 Achhuta Nand Singh is an A. S I. who held inquest P. W 15 it S. Z. Akhtar who conducted a part of the investigation P. W.18 Sakaldeo Narain is Pleaders clerk who proved an application which was marked as ext 18. 9. The eye-witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are P. W.3, P. W.4, P W.5, P. W.6 (not named in the first Information report)P. W.7 (not named in the first information report) P. W.9, P W.10 and p. W.11 who is the informant. Amongst the aforementioned witnesses P. W.9 has been disbelieved by the Court below. 10. The learned court below has also disbelieved the statements of the informant with regard to a part of the story whereby he sought to implicate the accused persons who have been acquitted by him. 11. The learned court below by reason of his impugned judgment inter alia held- (i) the prosecution has been able to prove the genesis of the occurrence. (ii) the occurrence in question has already been admitted by the defence. (iii) The informant had been irrigating his field first. (iv) It was not necessary for the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by 11 persons on the accused sides. (v) The evidence of prosecution witnesses are reliable. 12. Mr. K. P. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants raised a number of contentions in support of this application. 13. (iv) It was not necessary for the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by 11 persons on the accused sides. (v) The evidence of prosecution witnesses are reliable. 12. Mr. K. P. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants raised a number of contentions in support of this application. 13. According to the learned counsel, in view of the fact that 11 persons from the sides of the appellants amongst whom three persons had been acquitted by the court below having sustained injuries including gun shot injuries and grievous injury caused by sharp cutting weapons, the genesis of the prosecution case must fall to the ground as none of the prosecution witnesses explained the injuries on the persons of the accused persons. He further submitted that all the material prosecution witnesses are accused in the counter case and as they bear animosity against the appellants, in that view of the matter as also in view of the fact that no independent witnesses whatsoever has been examined, the prosecution case should not be believed. 14. The learned counsel further submitted that from a perusal of the post-mortem report, it would appear that the deceased Ram Chandra Singh received only one gun shot injury and that too muscle deep injuries on his buttock which according to the doctor (P. W.12) were not sufficient in the ordinary course to cause the death of Ramchandra Singh. It was further submitted that from a perusal of the deposition of the prosecution witness it would appear that all of them named only a few accused persons, although as 22 persons stood their trial. It was further submitted that from statements made by P. W.4 (Tribhuwan Singh) in paragraph 6 of his deposition, it would appear that Ram Chandra Singh had made statements before the police which having not been produced, an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution. 15. Mr. B. N. P. Gupta, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as also Mr. It was further submitted that from statements made by P. W.4 (Tribhuwan Singh) in paragraph 6 of his deposition, it would appear that Ram Chandra Singh had made statements before the police which having not been produced, an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution. 15. Mr. B. N. P. Gupta, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as also Mr. S. K. Verma, the learned counsel hearing on behalf of the informant, on the other hand, submitted that in the case the prosecution has explained the injuries on the person of the accused persons as would be evident from Ext.13 which is an affidavit of the informant It was further submitted that no case has been made out by the defence that death of ramchandra Singh and the injuries on the persons of other prosecution witnesses including the informant were caused by the appellants in exercise of their right of private defence. 16. It was submitted that the prosecution is not bound to explain the injuries on the persons of the accused persons. The learned counsel in this connection has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Omkarnath Singh V/s. State of U. P, reported in AIR 1974 SC 1550 . 17. It was further submitted that in any event it is not necessary for the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused persons as the occurrence itself is admitted. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellants were the aggressors and thus even if some injuries had been caused on their persons, they must be held to be guilty of the offences for which they have been convicted. It was further submitted that it is not correct to say that the first information report lodged by Nawlakh Singh was earlier in point of time. 18. According to the learned counsel the appellants manipulated to get their fardbeyan recorded earlier in collusion with the investigating Officer in order to save their own skin 19. In this case there are certain broad aspects of the matter which in our opinion, are necessary to notice. Admittedly the fardbeyan in the counter case was recorded earlier in point of time. The said fardbeyan of Nawlakh Singh (since deceased) was recorded in Hospital. 20. P. W.13 Doctor Upendra Prasad Himunsu in his evidence found the following injuries sustained by the accused persons. Admittedly the fardbeyan in the counter case was recorded earlier in point of time. The said fardbeyan of Nawlakh Singh (since deceased) was recorded in Hospital. 20. P. W.13 Doctor Upendra Prasad Himunsu in his evidence found the following injuries sustained by the accused persons. The relevant portion of his evidence is as follows:- "on the same date at 10 a. m. I examined Birendra Singh, s/o nawlakh Singh of the same place and found as follows:- (i) Multiple circular punched injury about 1/6" in diameter on the left sides of front of the chest and axilla. (ii) Multiple lacerated wound about 1/6" in diameter on both of the thighs. (iii) Multiple lacerated wound about 1/6" in diameter on the acne and fore-arm. Injuries were all caused by bullets. Injuries No. I and were grievous and 3 were simple. The injuries were within 6 hrs. The patient was referred to Arrah Sadar Hospital. On the same date at about 10.20 a. m. I examined Bahadur Singh shri Gyan Singh of the same place and found as follow: (i) Two lacerated wounds about the size of a pea on the right side of chest with coughing out of blood. (11) two separate lacerated injuries about 1/6" in diameter on the back of right elbow: both injuries were caused by bullets. Injury No.1 was grievous and No. (ii) was simple of the injuries within six hours. (Identified/injured Mahasar Singh)On the same date at about 10.45 a. m. I examined Bipin singh s/o Kailash Singh of the same place and found as follows : (i) Incised wound 3" x 1/2" X muscle deep on the lateral side of left shoulder and arm. (ii) Abrasion on upper part of chest, (iii) Ecchymosis on the back of right wrist, (iv) Ecchymosis on the back of right wrist 2"x2". Injuries were simple, but No.1 was caused by sharp cutting weapons and the rest by hard blant object within 6 hours of exam. On the same date at about 10.45 a. m. I examined Mithilesh Kumar singh, s/o Shri Bhagalu Singh of the same place and found as follows :- (i) Multiple pillet injuries (circular and punched) about 1/6" in diameter on the lateral side of right thigh and right knee. (ii) Multiple circular punched injuries about 1/6" in diameter on the left thigh, left knee and left by any two on the abdomen. (ii) Multiple circular punched injuries about 1/6" in diameter on the left thigh, left knee and left by any two on the abdomen. (iii) Multiple lacerated wound about 1/6" in diameter on the back of left hand, left fore-arm and left arm. (iv) Two lacerated wounds about 1/6" in diameter on the front-forearm below elbow. (v) Two lacerated wound of 1/6" in diameter on the front of the chest (left side ). All the above injuries were simple caused by pillets within 6 hours at the time of exam. Two pillets were taken out from one of the injuries and made over to police. On the same date at about 11 a. m.1 examined Subhash chandra Singh, s/o Dwarka Singh of the same place and found as follows :- (i) Multiple lacerated wounds about 1/6" in diameter on medial side of upper part of right thigh including two such injuries on scrotum. (ii) Six such separate injuries on the medial side of upper part of left thigh. All the injuries were simple caused by pillets within 6 hours at the time of exam. Three pillets were taken out from the injuries and they were sealed and handed over to P. S on the same day at about 3 P, M. I am examined Shri Budharan singh s/o Khiradhar Singh of the same place and found as follows : (i) Ecchymosis on the back of left leg. (ii) Ecchymosis on the back of left side of chest. Both the injuries are simple caused by hard blunt substance within 12 hours at the time of exam. On the same date at about 11.45 a. m. I examined Kalian singh, s/o Siv Mrhau Singh of the same place and found as follows : (i) Ecchymosis with marked tenderness and capitation on the right side of the chest fracture of ribs found, (ii) Abrasion on the back of right arm (3" x 1/2" ). (iii) Lacerated injury 1/2"x 1/6" of the lower lip. (iv) Abrasion on the punched 1/2"x 1/6* and 1x 1/6". The above injuries were caused by hard blunt substance Injury No.1 was grievous. X-ray plate R-10 of. . . . X-ray Arrah shows fracture of 7th-8th and 9th ribe. The injuries were within 6 hours on the time of exam. (iii) Lacerated injury 1/2"x 1/6" of the lower lip. (iv) Abrasion on the punched 1/2"x 1/6* and 1x 1/6". The above injuries were caused by hard blunt substance Injury No.1 was grievous. X-ray plate R-10 of. . . . X-ray Arrah shows fracture of 7th-8th and 9th ribe. The injuries were within 6 hours on the time of exam. On the same date at about 10.20 a. m. I examined Surendra kumar Singh, s/o Dwarika Singh of the same place and found as follows: (i) Multiple circular punches openings on the medial and front of both the thighs 1/6" in diameter. (ii) Lacerated injury 1/2" X 1/6" on the back of left ring finger. Injury No.1 was grievous and ceased by pillet and Injury No.2 was caused by hard blunt substance. Pillets were fired from 10 to 20 yards from front side. Injuries were within 6 hours at the time of exam. At about 9 p m. the patient was referred to Arrah Sadar Hospital for further treatment. On the same date at about 10.20 a. m. I examined Lallan singh, s/o Kailash Singh of the same place and found as follows I (i) Multiple central apertures each about of the size of P (one on the right side of the chest about 2" lateral to the stirnum, one on the right side of abdomen, one on the right side of abdomen, one on the front of left thigh, one on the medial side of left arm. One on the front of left fore-arm. All the injuries were simple caused by pillets with in six hours. Pillets were fired from 20 yards from the front side. On the same date at about 11.35 A. M. I examined Ramashish Singh, s/o Bhagalu Singh of the same place and found as follows ; (i) Multiple circular punched out openings about the size of pea on the medial side of both the left and right thighs. The injuries were simple caused by pillets fired from a distance of 20 yards from the front side. The injuries were within 6 hours. The pillets were fired and from the back and one from the front of right thigh and they were sealed and handed over to police on 24.10.84. On the same date at 11.30 A. M. I examined Rajesh Singh S/o Bhagalu singh of the same place with following Injuries. The injuries were within 6 hours. The pillets were fired and from the back and one from the front of right thigh and they were sealed and handed over to police on 24.10.84. On the same date at 11.30 A. M. I examined Rajesh Singh S/o Bhagalu singh of the same place with following Injuries. (i) Bleeding injury on the medial side of lower part of right leg with black urine of the size of pea. Injury was simple cause by pillet within 6 hours on the time of exam". (Italic Is mine) 21 The said witness also proved 11 injury reports in relation to the aforementioned injured persons which were marked as Ext. A to a/10. 22. From a perusal of the statements made by P. W.13 it thus, appears that appellant No.1 Bipin Singh, appellant No.2, Rajendra Singh, appellant No.5 Lallan Singh, Appellant No.9, Mithlesh Kumar Singh, appellant No.10. Ramashish Singh, Appellant No.12, Surendra Kumar singh alias Surendra Singh Appellant No 13, Kailash Singh and Appellant no.14 Bahadur Singh as also three other persons who had been acquitted by the learned court below received injuries. Out of the 11 persons at least 10 sustained fun shot injuries whereas another sustained a grievous injuries caused by a sharp-cutting weapon. As noticed hereinbefore, some of the accused persons have received grievous injuries on vital parts of their bodies. 23. As indicated hereinbefore, in the fardbeyan of the counter case, nawlakh Singh (since deceased) categorically staled that the first shot was fired by the informant Brahmdeo Singh resulting in injury to Birendra Singh whereupon in exercise of their right of the private defence, the appellants had also tired some shots from their guns. In the said first information report (Ext. C), It has been admitted that prosecution witnesses might have also received injuries 24. From the evidence of P. W.13, it appears that whereas the appellants were examined by him from 10 A. M. on the same date but he started examining the injuries on the persons of the prosecution witnesses much thereafter. The deceased Ram Chandra Singh was examined by him at about 1 P. M. It is admitted that Ramchandra Singh first went to the poliee station alongwith other injured persons and thereafter he was referred to the hospital. 25. The deceased Ram Chandra Singh was examined by him at about 1 P. M. It is admitted that Ramchandra Singh first went to the poliee station alongwith other injured persons and thereafter he was referred to the hospital. 25. P. W.13 examined Vijay Kumar Singh and found the following injuries :- Vijay Kumar Singh: - (i) Lacerated wound 3" x 1/2" X muscle deep on right side of scale. (ii) Ecchymosis on the back of right shoulder 3"x2". The injuries had been caused by hard blunt substance likely by lathi within 6 hours at the time of examination. 26. On the same date, he examined Brahamdeo Singh at about 1.35 p. M. and found the following injuries: -Brahamdeo Singh- (i) Incised wound 4" x 1/2"x Bone deep with cutting of 2nd metacarpal on the web of the space between right thumb and right index finger. (ii) Ecchymosis on the back of upper part of right leg 1/2" X 1/2". (iii) Abrasion on the front of upper part cf right leg 1/2" X 1/2". Injury No.1 according to doctor, had been caused by sharp-cutting weapon likely by farsha and other by hard blunt substance within 6 hours at the time of examination. 27. On the same date at about 1 A. M. he examined Ram Chandra singh and found the following injuries:- (i) Two separate circular apertures with profuse bleeding on the back of each of the left and front things (upper part ). The injuries had been caused by pellets. (ii) 22 pellet injuries on the back of waist scattered in an area of about 11"x 1". There was profuse bleeding from the wounds. The Injuriei had been caused by short gun fires from a distance of about 10 years The direction of the fire was from the back side. Injuries were alleged by receiver with 6 hours at the time of examination. 28. He further examined Surendra Prasad Singh at about 1 P. M. on the same date and found the following injuries :- (i) Six separate circular apertures on the entro-lateral part of right thigh They spread in an area of 6"x6" on and about right knee The injury had been caused by pellets fired from a distance of about 10 yards. The direction of the fire was from the front side. Four pellets were removed from the injuries of this person. The direction of the fire was from the front side. Four pellets were removed from the injuries of this person. 29 He also examined Shri Dinanath Singh and found the following injuries :- (i) Bleeding injury on the back left leg pea size with black margins. Injury had been caused by pellet within 6 hours at the time of examination. 30 He also examined Shri Tribhuwan Singh at about 11.45 A. M. and found the following injuries :- (i) pellet Injury on the left side of the chest. (ii) pea size bleeding injury with black margins on the left side (lateral) side. The doctor has not stated in his evidence as to where this injury was. But it appears from the injury report (ext.4/3) that this injury was on the left thigh. Both the injuries had been caused by pellets within 6 hours at the time of examination. 31 He also examined Jatiram Singh at about 12 noon and found the following injuries :- (i) Pea-sized bleeding injury with black margin on the medial side of left thigh. The injury had been caused by pellet within 6 hours at the time of examination. The injury reports with respect to the above injury are exhibits 4 to 4/6" p. W.13 categorically stated that he examined the aforementioned prosecution witnesses only after they were referred to him for this examination by the Police. 32. P. W.14 is Alakhdeo Singh, According to this witness he sent the aforementioned 7 prosecution witnesses for their examinations in respect whereof he proved the injury slips which were marked. As Ext.5 to 5/6. 33. From the facts, aforementioned there cannot be any doubt that whereas the appellants and their associates rushed to the hospital at the earliest possible opportunity for getting themselves treated, the informant, the deceased and their associate reached hospital at a much later stage It also appears that prior to examination of their injuries, they were not treated anywhere else. 34. It is also evident that the first information report lodged by nawlakh Singh (since deceased) of appellant of criminal Appeal No.21 of of 1987 was earlier in point of time. 35. 34. It is also evident that the first information report lodged by nawlakh Singh (since deceased) of appellant of criminal Appeal No.21 of of 1987 was earlier in point of time. 35. There is nothing on record to show that the Investigating Officer colded (?) with the appellants in order to help them by recording the first information report lodged by P. W.11 later in the point of time as has been submitted by Shri Verma, the learned counsel appearing for the Informant. 36. It is further evident that although Doctor Upendra Prasad himanshu found two injuries on the person of the deceased Ramchandra singh but in the post-mortem report P. W 12 Dr R. B. Chaudhary found only one injury. His evidence in this regard is as follows :- "on 20.10.1984 at 2.45 P. M. when I was posted in P. M. C. H. Patna on the same post I held post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ram Chandra Singh, S/o Salik Singh, resident of village Kakhuana, P S. Sahar, District Bhojpur. The dead body was identified by constable No.3604 Jai Gobind ram of Peer Bahore P. S. The following ante-mortem injuries were found. (i) Scattered pellets injuries covering an area of 10" x 10" on the back of Waist. On dissection: -Large quantity of blood clot were found in the muscles of buttock and in the pelvis. One pellet was recovered from the muscle of buttock. The pellet was handed over to constable ; the injury was caused by shot gun fired from a distance of ten yards. Time elapsed since death was within 24 hours but more than 6 hours. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the above injuries " 37. However, in this cross-examination he stated-"injuries were not sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death because they were not inflicted on vital parts of the body and the injuries were only muscle deep. No obvious sign of treatment were seen on the dead body. 38. It is true that in a case where occular evidence and the medical evidence are contradictory to each other, the court may sometime ignore medical evidence and given preference to the ocular evidence. No obvious sign of treatment were seen on the dead body. 38. It is true that in a case where occular evidence and the medical evidence are contradictory to each other, the court may sometime ignore medical evidence and given preference to the ocular evidence. However, in the post-mortem report submitted by P. W.12 ante-mortem injuries of the deceased were found to be scattered pellet injuries on the back of the wrist and only one pellet was recovered from the muscle of the buttock. 39. It is interesting to note that in the first information report as also P. Ws.1 and 2 in their deposition categorically stated that two persons, namely Nawlakh Singh and Ramlakhan Singh fired upon the deceased from a closed distance. Some of the prosecution witnesses have stated that the shot was fired from a closed range. It, however, appears that P. W.3 in paragraph 13 of his deposition stated that the firing took place within 10 steps from east to west His evidence thut does not inspire confidence inasmuch as the statements made therein are wholly contradictory to and inconsistent with the first information report. The said statement was perhaps made in order to cover up a part of the post-mortem report the effect that the shot had been fired from a distance of about 9 yards. 40. P. W.4 stated that he received injuries from one shot fired at him but allegedly he received injuries on the left side of the chest as also below knee. 41. P. W.13 however stated that the first injury was caused from a distance of 3 yards but the second injury was caused from a greater distance. This witness further arrived at the place of occurrence when Ram chandra Singh had already fallen down. 42. The Investigating Officer did not seize blood on 19.10.1984 when he visited the place of occurrence for the first time but he did 10 only on 21.10.1984. The prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that the place of occurrence was full of water. The incident itself took place when a dispute arose as to who would irrigate the land first namely P. W.11 of Nawlakh singh. Therefore, there could not have any justification for the Investigating officer in seizing the blood on the place of occurrence on 21.10.1984. It is further interesting to note that although as many as 21 persons stood trial. The incident itself took place when a dispute arose as to who would irrigate the land first namely P. W.11 of Nawlakh singh. Therefore, there could not have any justification for the Investigating officer in seizing the blood on the place of occurrence on 21.10.1984. It is further interesting to note that although as many as 21 persons stood trial. None of prosecution witness has identified more than 8 persons. Admittedly the occurrence took place for more than 10.15 minutes. 43. The learned court below in paragraph 27 of its judgment stated thus:- "the following witnesses identified the accused persons during the incident:- (i) Nawlakh Singh :-Identified by P. Ws.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11= by 8 persons. All of them say that Nawlakh Singh was armed with gun. (ii) Ramshakal Singh:-Identified by P. Ws.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 by 8 persons. All of them say that Ramshakal singh was armed with gun (iii) Btpin Singh :-Identified by P. Ws.3, 4, 5.6, 7, 9,10. and 11-by 8 persons. All of them say that Bipin Singh was armed with Fursha but Tribhuwan Singh says that he was armed with garasha. (iv) Katlash Singh:-Identified by P. W. s 3,3,6, 9, 10 and 11= by 6 persons. The witnesses say that he was armed with lathi. (v) Bahadur Singh J-Identified by P. W. s 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11--by 6 persons. The witnesses say that he was armed with lathi. (vi) Baban Singh:.-Identified by P. W. s 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 = by 5 Persons. The witnesses say that he was armed with lathi. (vii) Rajendra Singh:-Identified by P. W. s 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11 =by 5 persons. The witnesses say that he was armed with lathi. (viii) Hirday Singh :-Identified by P. W. s 4, 5,7 and l1=by 4 persons. The witnesses say that he was armed with farsha but P. W.4 Tribhuwan Singh says that he was armed garasha. (ix) Lallan Singh :- Identified by P. W. s 3, 4 and 11 =by 3 persons The witnesses say that he was armed with farsha. (x) Sheojanam Singh ;-Identified by P. W. s 4,and and 11=3 persons. The witnesses say that he was armed with lathi. (xi) Sharda Singh: -Identified by P. W. s 4,7 and 11-by 3 persons. The witnesses say that he was armed with lathi. (x) Sheojanam Singh ;-Identified by P. W. s 4,and and 11=3 persons. The witnesses say that he was armed with lathi. (xi) Sharda Singh: -Identified by P. W. s 4,7 and 11-by 3 persons. The witnesses say that he was armed with lathi. (xii) Ramjee Singh: -Identified by P. Ws 6 and 11-by two persons. The witnesses say that he was armed with lathi. (xiii) Nirmal Kumar :-Identified by P. W. s 6 and 11 = by two persons. Both of them say that he was armed with garasha. (xiv) Dwarika Singh :-Identified by P. W. s 3 and 11 = by two persons. Both of them say that he was armed with garasha. Dwarika Singh :-Identified by P. W. s 3 and 11 = by 2 persons. The witnesses say that he was armed with lathi. (xv) Surendra Singh :-Identified P. W. s 7 and 11 = by 2 persons. The witnesses says that he was armed with lathi. (xvi) Bhim Singh :-Identified by P. W. s 7 and l1=by 2 persons. P. W.11 says that he was armed with lathi. (xvii) Blrendra Kumar Singh :-Identified by informant (P. W.11 ). The witness says that he was armed with lathi. (xviii) Ramasis Singh.-Identified by P. W. s 7 and 11 = 2 persons. The witnesses says that he was armed with lathi. (xix) Nawalpramod Singh :-Identified by informant (P. W.11 ). The witnesses says that he was armed with farsha. (xx) Indra kumar Singh :-Identified by informant (P. W.11 ). The witness says that he was armed with lathi. (xxi) Subhash Singh:-Identified by Informant (P. W.11 ). The witness say that he was armed with bhala (xxii) Ramdhani Singh :-Identified by informant (P. W.11 ). The witness says that he was armed with bhala. " 44 It is wholly unbelievable that if the occurrence had taken place in the manner as suggested by the prosecution, and further in view of the fact all the accused persons belonged to the same family and are related with the informant, only Ram Sakal Singh and Nawlakh Singh could have been identified by 8 persons whereas other accused persons could have been identified only by 1, 2 or three persons. This appears to be wholly improbable particularly in view of the feet that in the first information report the informant as also the prosecution witnesses had attributed one or over the overt act or acts on the part of all the accused persons. As the entire occurrence lasted for about 10-15 minutes there does not appear to be any plausible explanation as to why all of the prosecution witnesses could notice only a few of the appellants. This assumes importance inasmuch as even according to the prosecution case the informant was the last person amongst the prosecution witnesses to reach the place of occurrence, but in his fardbeyan he has named all the appellants. 45. P. W.6 in paragraph 4 of his deposition, P. W.1 in paragraph 5 of his deposition, P. W.10, in paragraph 7 of his deposition and P. W.5 in paragraph 20 of his deposition have categorically stated that many villagers assembled at the spot at the time and immediately after the occurrence took place. Despite the same no independent witness have been examined. Admittedly all the prosecution witnesses are closely related to each other. It is true that non-examination of the independent witnesses by itself may not be fatal for the prosecution case, but in this case we cannot lose sight of two important facts, viz, (a) the informant was a man of status as he was the mukhiya of the village and (b) according to his own statements in Ext.13, the villagers who assembled at the place became enraged and took relatiatory measures when the appellants intended to remove the injured ram Chaadra Singh. Evidently, therefore, as per the prosecution version the villagers were siding with the informant and his party, and thus there cannot be any reason as to why none of them was examined by the prosecution 46. As noticed hereinbefore, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant has relied upon an affidavit sworn by P. W.11 which was marked as Ext.13 In the said affidavit, PW.11 stated that the prosecution witnesses were not armed In the said affidavit it was further stated that as the appellants intended to remove the injured Ramchandra Singh, upon cries of the wife villagers assembled in the said affidavit P. W.11 also alleged that none of the accused persons received any injuries whatsoever. 47. 47. Apart from the fact that the explanation sought to be offered in the aforementioned affidavit is not admissible in evidence inasmuch as the said purported, explanation to the effect that the villagers assembled and prevented the appellants from removing the injured Ramchandra singh does not find place in his deposition but as indicated hereinbefore, even in the said affidavit he denied that any injury was received by any of the appellants. 48. It is, therefore, clear that all the prosecution witnesses tried to conceal the fact that 11 persons out of 21 accused persons received injuries 49. In Omkarnath Singh v State of U. P. reported in AIR 1974 SC page 1550, the Supreme Court held that non-explanation of injury is a question of fact and not of law. It has further held that answer to such a question depends upon circumstances on each case. 50. The Supreme Court, however, laid down the law in the following terms: "such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the court will scrutinise their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence" 51. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence" 51. In Mahendra Banrait V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1987 BCJ page 730, this court upon considering various decisions of the Supreme Court, namely Mohan Rat V/s. State of Bihar in AIR 1968 SC 1281 , Lakshmi Singh and others V/s. State of Bihar in AIR 1976 SC 2263 , Babu Nad Nand Sharma and others V/s. State of Bihar in AIR 1977 SC 2252 , Jagdish V/s. State of Rajasthan in AIR 1979 SC 1010 came to the conclusion that the court should consider as to whether the injuries the persons of the accused were serious or could be self-inflicted ones and thereafter the court should consider as to whether non-explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused creates any reasonable doubt as to the genesis of the occurrence, manner of of the occurrence or could probabilise the defence plea explaining the injuries upon the victim of the prosecution case. 52. This court in the aforementioned decision also considered the decisions of the Supreme in Banke Lal and others V/s. State of U. P. reported in 1971 SC 2233, Ramlagan Singh and others V/s. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1972 SC 2593 as also Omkar Naths case (supra ). 53. Yet recently the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan V/s. Madho and another reported in AIR 1991 SC 1065 held that where injuries sustained by accused persons in the same incident in, which offences under sections 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code are alleged to have been committed by them, but the prosecution witnesses failing to explain those injuries and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses giving impression that they had been suppressing some part of the incident, the accused must be held to be entitled to benefit of doubt. 54. In this case, the defence has taken a specific plea of self-defence. 54. In this case, the defence has taken a specific plea of self-defence. Nawlakh Singh in his first information report categorically stated that some members of the prosecution party have also received injuries In the counter case, a large number of persons were stated to be accused persons. 55. The prosecution witnesses, categorically admitted that on the date in question there had been only one incident. In such a situation, and particularly in view of the fact that the prosecution witnesses made an attempt to suppress the serious injuries suffered by as many as 11 of the accused persons, although they were being treated at the same hospital even prior to the examination of the injuries on the persons of the prosecution witnesses by P. W 13 and further in view of the fact that the injuries on the person of the deceased Ramchandra Singh was not so serious, as stated by P. W.12, in my opinion, the plea of exercise of right of self-defence by the appellants appears to be reasonable and probable and further the appellants are also entitled to benefit of doubts. 56. In Omkarnath Singhs case (supra) the Supreme Court rejected :he plea of right of private defence having found that two incidents were separated by time and distance and there was no continuity of action. It was further found that the assault on the deceased and his brother was exceedingly vindictive and maliciously excessive and the force used out of all proportion to the supposed danger, which no longer existed, from the complaint party. 57. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, I am of the view that the judgment of conviction passed against appellants cannot be sustained. 58. In the result, this appeal is allowed, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is set aside. 59. Ah the appellants are on bail. They are discharged from their bail bonds. Appeal allowed.