JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25-2-1984 passed by the Additional Session Judge, No. 1, Alwar, in Sessions Case No. 3/81, whereby he convicted accused appellant, Ram Kishan, under Sec. 307 IPC & under Sec.3/27 of the Arms Act, & sentenced him under Sec.307 IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two and half years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. in a default of the payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The appellant was further sentenced under Section 3/27 of the Arms Act to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 15-8-1980 at about 10.20 p.m. one written report was lodged by one Ganesh S/o Chhotakiya Meena at police station-Rajgarh, regarding an incident which took place on the same date at about 6.00 p.m. The said report is alleged to have been lodged against nine persons including five women and the present appellant. It was alleged in the report that fields of Ram Kumar (injured) and the accused were situated adjoining. On 15-8-1980 at about 6.00 p.m. Ram Kumar and Gyarsa were sitting in their patol. All of a sudden, the accused came there and gave a lathi blow on the back of Gyarsa S/o Ram Kumar and started abusing. 3. It was further alleged in the report that when the complainant party objected the accused persons for their overt act, the wife of the accused appellant gave him a gun, who fired three shots at Ramjilal, Gyarsa, Ram Kumar and Kailash Meenu, but one of the person-Ram Kumar, from the complainant side sustained injuries by the gun fire. The appellant was intending to fire a 4th shot but at that time the gun was snatched by one Ram Swaroop. 4. From the perusal of record it appears that regarding the same incident accused appellant - Ram Kishan also lodged a report against the complainant party and a case was registered under Section 307 IPC against the members of the complaint party. Five persons from the side of the accused party sustained number of injuries including grievous injuries. 5. 4. From the perusal of record it appears that regarding the same incident accused appellant - Ram Kishan also lodged a report against the complainant party and a case was registered under Section 307 IPC against the members of the complaint party. Five persons from the side of the accused party sustained number of injuries including grievous injuries. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this case place of incident is not certain and that the accused party sustained about 51 injuries out of them five were grievous in nature. In such a situation a question arises whether right of private defence of person or property was available to the accused party, or not. Learned counsel further submits that the injuries sustained from the side of the accused party were not explained by the prosecution and that whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that the appellant used firearm and fired three shots. In these circumstances, intention to commit murder can safely be inferred against the accused appellant and it is not material whether any person sustained injuries, or not. He further submit that though the accused persons also sustained injures but appellant was not justified in using firearm in defending himself or co-accused persons. 7. I have considered the points raised by both the learned counsel and perused the entire record as well as the judgment of the learned trial Court. 8. In this case the place of incident is very important. According to the prosecution case, the appellant came to the house of Ram Kumar and fired three shots as a result of which four persons sustained firearm injuries, and so also the other accused named in first information report gave beating to the members of the complainant party. According to the prosecution case, the appellant made three shots but it is very strange that the Investigating Officer (PW-17) did not recover any empty cartridges and wads from the place of incident. The incident took place on 15-8-1980 but the site plan was prepared on 17-8-1980. At the time of inspection, the Investigating Officer found that on the spot he failed to pick up the blood stained earth from the place of incident. The incident took place on 15-8-1980 but the site plan was prepared on 17-8-1980. At the time of inspection, the Investigating Officer found that on the spot he failed to pick up the blood stained earth from the place of incident. The learned trial Court has also disbelieved the prosecution story and the finding of the trial Court regarding the place of incident is that as per the statement of the witnesses of the prosecution, I am of the opinion that it will be fair to observe that the incident took place in the thoroughfare and not at the house of Ram Kumar. It is thus clear that the members of the accused party were not at the house of Ram Kumar and looking to the number of injuries sustained by the accused persons it can be said that complainant party was aggressor and they made an attack on the members of the accused party. When the trial Court has disbelieved the place of incident as given by the complainant party, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful. The site was inspected after two days and no reason has been given by the prosecution and it casts doubt on the prosecution story as is observed by this Court in the case reported in 1988 R.C.C. 18, and 1971 S.C. (UC) p. 100. 9. It is clear from the above discussion that the incident did not take place in the manner as given by the prosecution. According to the prosecution story the appellant fired three shots aiming four persons but only one person sustained injuries which were on the non-vital parts and were simple in nature. On the same day a report was also lodged by the accused-party against the members of the complainant party and a case was registered against the members of the complainant party by the police. As said earlier, the accused party also sustained injuries including five grievous due in nature The Investigating Officer also found blood stains and marks of violence on the place where the accused party alleged the commission of the offence. In these circumstances, accused persons have the right of private defence of person and property, and the learned trial Court did not at all consider the question of right of private defence which was necessarily available to the accused appellant in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 10. In these circumstances, accused persons have the right of private defence of person and property, and the learned trial Court did not at all consider the question of right of private defence which was necessarily available to the accused appellant in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 10. From the record, it also appears that the members of the complainant party damaged the crops of the accused appellant and caused injury to five persons. It is also clear from the documents produced by the accused party maked as Ex. D-7 to Ex. D-11, so in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case it is clear that the members of the complainant party were the aggressor and the accused persons rightly exercised their right of private defence of person. For these observations reliance can be placed on the cases reported in AIR 1992 SC p. 675, AIR 1987 SC p. 1289, 1991 R.C.C. 118, AIR 1976 SC p. 2263 and 1986 Cr. L.C. (Raj.) p. 453. In Bhagwan Swaroop v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( AIR 1992 SC 675 ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "Right of private defence - father of accused being given lathi blows by the complainant party - firing of gun shot by accused to defend person of his father - held justified. Fact whether injuries caused to father by lathi blow were simple or grievous - not relevant." The principle laid down in Bhagwan Swaroop's case (Supra) is fully applicable in the present case and the accused appellant is entitled to get the benefit of said principle. 11. As said earlier, the injuries sustained by the accused persons have not been explained by the prosecution and non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused persons is a serious infirmity as is held in the cases reported in AIR 1976 SC p. 2263, A.I.R. 1968 SC p. 1281, 1989 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) p. 676 & 413, and in A.I.R. 1989 SC p. 1097. 12. The learned trial Court, itself, has disbelieved most of the prosecution version on all material points. L.R. (Raj.) p. 676 & 413, and in A.I.R. 1989 SC p. 1097. 12. The learned trial Court, itself, has disbelieved most of the prosecution version on all material points. The prosecution version that the appellant and other co-accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly, was also disbelieved besides the prosecution version that Smt. Sukha Bai gave the gun to the accused, so, in case, when this part of the prosecution story is disbelieved then the second part of using the gun, cannot be held to be proved. And, when the prosecution witnesses as against the other co-accused persons have been disbelieved by the learned trial Court, the same evidence cannot be believed as against the one i.e. accused-appellant, more so when all the prosecution witnesses are highly interested in prosecution and they have been named as accused in the counter case then their testimony suffers from serious infirmities including material contradictions and inconsistencies. 13. After the perusal of the record I am also of the opinion that the learned trial Court erred in law in not properly appreciating that in a criminal case the prosecution is required to prove the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The onus on the accused is not so onerous and the onus can be discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of the plea taken by the accused. Another cardinal principle of the criminal jurisprudence is that the accused persons are entitled to benefit of all reasonable doubts. In the instant case, if the aforesaid two principles are applied, the case of the accused becomes highly doubtful and it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of the same is extended to the accused appellant. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this appeal is, therefore, allowed. The judgment of the learned trial Court dated 25-2-1984 is set aside, and the accused appellant is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled. He need not surrender. *******