B. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 20. 8. 1979 passed by the IVt Additional Sessions Judge, Basti in S. T. No. 20 of 1979 State v. Jagdish Ojha and others, under Sections 147,323 and 302/149 I. P. C P. S. , Paikaulia district Basti. ( 2 ) ONE Sheo Lal of village Khairee Ojha had tour sons Ram Karan, Kotwal, Sumesar and Mahesh. Accused Jagdish Ojha is the son of Kotwal while accused Paramdeo alias Parmatma is the son of accused Jagdish. Accused Bhawani Pher and Bhurila alias Suraj are the sons of Mahesh. Accused Chandras Kumars father was a teacher and colleague of accused Jagdish Ojha. ( 3 ) TRISHOOL Nath P. W. 1 is the grand son of Sheoraj. Sheoraj had two sons, namely, Laxmi Nath and Sukhdeo. The deceased Swami Nath and Trishool Nath P. W. 1 are the sons of Sukhdeo. Lalta is the son of Laxmi Nath and Trijugi is the son of Lalta. ( 4 ) CHAK No. 49 was under litigation. On the one side was arrayed the family of Trishool Nath P. W. 1 while on the other side was arrayed the family of accused Jagdish Ojha and others. ( 5 ) ON 21st March, 1978 it was about 6. 30 A. M. when Trijugi Nath same upon the door of Swami Naths house and asked him not to permit anyone to do plotting etc. in Chak No. 49, as he was going to Basti to bring a Stay order. Trijugi had sown wheat crop in Chak No. 49 at that time. Trishool Nath P. W. 1 was present there. At about 7. 00 A. M. Trishool Nath P. W. I saw that accused Jagdish Ojha, Paramdeo alias Parmatma, Bhawani Pher, Bhurila alias Suraj, Shitla and Chandras Kumar accompanied by Kanungo and Lekhpal of the area were going to regards Chak No. 49. All these six accused were armed with lath is while the Kanungo and Lekhpal were having some papers in their hands. Swami Nath also went to Chak No. 49 and shortly thereafter Trishool Nath P. W. 1 also reached there. At that time, these six accused and Swami Nath were having some discussion and Swami Nath was insisting that the plotting of Chak No. 49 should be done only after return of Trijugi Nath from Basti. Swami Nath also went to Chak No. 49 and shortly thereafter Trishool Nath P. W. 1 also reached there. At that time, these six accused and Swami Nath were having some discussion and Swami Nath was insisting that the plotting of Chak No. 49 should be done only after return of Trijugi Nath from Basti. Accused Jagdish Ojha then gave out that Swami Nath was the basis of dispute and he should be killed. Kanungo and Lekhpal were engaged in doing the plotting of the Chak and the quarrel stated at that very time. All the six accused assaulted Swami Nath with lathis on being exhorted by Jagdish Ojha. On alarm being raised, the witnesses Ram Autar Paras Nath, Narain, Dutt, Ayodhya Prasad and Adya Prasad and others from the village reached there. Jagdish Ojha gave a lathi blow to Trishool Nath P. W. 1 also. Swami Nath received a number of injuries and died on the spot. The villagers and witnesses then chased the accused persons, but they escaped. ( 6 ) A report Ext. Ka-1 of the occurrence was got scribed by Trishool Nath P. W. 1 by Ram Shringar Ojha. This report Ext. Ka 1 was handed over by Trishool Nath P. W. 1 in P. S. Paikaulia at 10. 00 A. M. on the same day. ( 7 ) HEAD Constable, Bansh Bahadur Yadav, P. W. 10, who was posted in P. S. Paikaulia in March, 1978 had received the written report Ex. Ka 1 from Trishool Nath P. W. 1 and had prepared the Chick report Ext. Ka-5 at 10. 00 A. M. He had also made the G. D. entry Ext. Ka 6 about the commission of the crime. He had also prepared the letter for medical examination of Trishool Nath. Ex. Ka-7. ( 8 ) ROUTINE investigation followed and was conducted by S. O. Onkar Singh, P. W. 12. During the course of investigation S. O. Onkar Singh had carried out inquest proceedings upon the dead body of Swami Nath and had sent the same to Basti for post-mortem examination through Constable Ramindar Singh P. W. 11. ( 9 ) DR. J. N. L. Srivastava, P. W. 7, who was posted as Senior Surgeon, in District Hospital, Basti, in March, 1978, had conducted the post mortem examination upon the dead body of Swami Nath on 22. 3. 1978, at 3. ( 9 ) DR. J. N. L. Srivastava, P. W. 7, who was posted as Senior Surgeon, in District Hospital, Basti, in March, 1978, had conducted the post mortem examination upon the dead body of Swami Nath on 22. 3. 1978, at 3. 00 P. M. in mortuary. The result of the post mortem was as follows:the deceased was of average built. The rigor mortis had passed from all the four limbs. The dead body had not decomposed. The following ante-mortem injuries were found noon the dead body of Swami Nath: (1) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the top of the head. 14 cm from the left ear and 16 cm from left eye brow. Obliquely placed. (2) Contusion 15 cm x 11 cm over left temporal and the parietal region and frontal area. (3) Contusion 13 cm x 8 cm right temporal and frontal region. (4) Contusion 8 cm x 6 cm over right check. (5) Left black eye due to ecchymosis. (6) Lacerated wound 1. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x bone deep on left leg 5 cm below knee oblique. On internal examination, Dr. J. N. L. Srivastava, P. W. 7 found the following injuries: (1) Extensive Haemorrhage and clots in both skull layers and above skull bone. (2) Depressed communicated fracture in an area of 5 cm x 6 cm over left temporal bone and. parietal bone. (3) Linear fracture 12 cm along starting from the outer margin of above fracture extending over parietal and occipital region. (4) Extradural blood clot in an area 16 cm x 9 cm over left temporal, parietal and occipital lobe. In the opinion of the Dr. J. N. L. Srivastava, all the injuries of the deceased were caused by some blunt weapon. The post mortem report was also proved by the medical witness. ( 10 ) DR. Q. S. Riyaz, P. W. 9 was posted as Medical Officer, P. H. C. Harraiya, District Basti in March, 1978, and he examined Trishool Nath on 21. 3. 1978 at 4. 15 P. M. and had found the following injury upon his person: Contusion 10 cm x 1. 5 cm on the back of the lower one third portion of the left fore-armt. The injury was simple and was caused by some blunt object. The injury report Ext. Ka-4 was also prepared by Dr. 3. 1978 at 4. 15 P. M. and had found the following injury upon his person: Contusion 10 cm x 1. 5 cm on the back of the lower one third portion of the left fore-armt. The injury was simple and was caused by some blunt object. The injury report Ext. Ka-4 was also prepared by Dr. Q. S. Riyaz. ( 11 ) AFTER completing the investigation, a charge-sheet under Sections 302/149, 323 and 147 I. P. C was filed against all these six accused by S. O. Vishwanath Ram P. W. 8, who had taken over the investigation from S. O. Onkar Singh, P. W. 12. ( 12 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty at the trial and claimed to be tried. ( 13 ) IN all the prosecution examined twelve witnesses, namely, Trishool Nath P. W. 1, Paras Nath P. W. 2, Ram Autar P. W. 3, Narain Dutt, P. W. 4, Adya Prasad Ojha, P. W. 5, Om Prakash Saxena, P. W. 6, Dr. J. N. L. Srivastava, P. W. 7, S. O. Vishwanath Ram P. W. 8, Dr. Q. S. Riyaz, P. W. 9, Head Constable Bansh Bahadur Yadav P. W. 10, Constable Ramindar Singh P. W. 11 and Onkar Singh P. W. 12, in the case. ( 14 ) THE accused examined Dr. Pramod Kumar D. W. 1 and Dr. R. C. Varma D. W. 2 in their defence. ( 15 ) THE learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, all the six accused were acquitted of the charges with which they were charged. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the trial court, the State has come in appeal. ( 16 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have gone through the record of the case. ( 17 ) BEFORE discussing the evidence of the witnesses of fact, we may deal with the evidence which is more or less of formal nature. Dr. J. N. L. Srivastava P. W. 7 has proved the postmortem report Ext. Ka 2. Dr. Q. S. Riyaz P. W. 9 has proved the injury report Ext. Ka 4, 5. 0. Vishwanath Ram P. W. 8 has proved the charge-sheet Ext. Ka 3. Head Constable Bansh Bahadur Yadav P. W 10 has proved the Chick report Ext. Dr. J. N. L. Srivastava P. W. 7 has proved the postmortem report Ext. Ka 2. Dr. Q. S. Riyaz P. W. 9 has proved the injury report Ext. Ka 4, 5. 0. Vishwanath Ram P. W. 8 has proved the charge-sheet Ext. Ka 3. Head Constable Bansh Bahadur Yadav P. W 10 has proved the Chick report Ext. Ka 5 and the G. D. entry Ext. Ka 6 and letter for medical examination Ext. Ka 7. Constable Ramindar Singh P. W 11 had taken the dead body of the deceased Swami Nath to the mortuary in a sealed cover. S. O. Onkar Singh P. W. 12 has deposed about the various steps which were taken by him during the course of investigation. He has proved the Panchayatnama, letter for C. M. O. , another letter for C. M. O. Challan Naash, letter to R. 1. , photo Naash (Exts. 8 to 13 ). He has also proved the memo Ext. Ka-14 and the site plan Ext. Ka-15. The evidence of those witnesses has not been challenged before us from the side of the respondents and we find no reason to disbelieve the same. ( 18 ) DR. Pramod Kumar D. W. 1, who was posted as Medical Officer in District Hospital, Basti in March, 1978, had examined the injuries of Jagdish Ojha on 21st March, 1978 and the injuries of Paramdeo Ojha, Suraj Phool and Bhawani Pher on 22nd March, 1978. Dr. Pramod Kumar D. W. 1 had found the following injuries upon the person of these four accused: Injuries of Jagdish Ojha1. Incised wound 4 cm x 5 cm x skin deep on top of scalp 3 cm above left eye brow. 2. Abraded contusion 3 cm x 1 cm right side of head 8 cm above right eye brow. 3. Contused swelling 6 cm x 3 cm on left fore-arm 6 cm below elbow joint. 4. Contused swelling 6 cm x 4 cm x 2 cm below left elbow joint. 5. Abraison 2 cm x. 2 cm docs of left thumb. 6. Abrasion 2 cm x. 2 cm just below nail of left thumb. 7. Swelling turned left region finger adv. X-ray. 8. Contusion 12 cm x 2. 5 cm. right side of back in interior scapular angle. 9. Contusion 6 cm x. 15 cm left lower thigh joint. 10. 5. Abraison 2 cm x. 2 cm docs of left thumb. 6. Abrasion 2 cm x. 2 cm just below nail of left thumb. 7. Swelling turned left region finger adv. X-ray. 8. Contusion 12 cm x 2. 5 cm. right side of back in interior scapular angle. 9. Contusion 6 cm x. 15 cm left lower thigh joint. 10. Contusion 7 cm x 3/5 cm just above injury No. 9. In the opinion of Dr. Pramod Kumar D. W 1 all the injuries of Jagdish Ojha were simple except injury No. 7 which was subject to the result of X ray. All these injuries were caused by some blunt weapon and were fresh. Injuries of Paramdeo Ojha1. Contusion 8 cm x 2 cm on right fore arm below elbow joint on outer aspect. 2. Abraison 2 cm x 1 cm on middle side of right leg 15 cm above ankle joint. 3. Swelling 3 cm x 2. 5 cm on right heel. Injuries of Suraj Phool :1. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1. 5 cm x skin deep on top of scalp 11 cm above left ear in mid line on peretid brow. 2. Contused swelling 11 cm x 8 cm dorsum of left hand is tender to touch. Advised X-ray. 3. Abraison 2 cm x. 5 cm on back of right forearm 3 cm below wrist joint. 4. Abraison 1 cm x 1 cm on the back of left side of waist near 2nd bentrior spine. Injuries of Bhawani Pher :-1. Swelling in crepitus and deformity 11 cm x 6 cm on right fore arm 8 cm about right wrist joint fracture. Advised X-ray. 2. Contusion swelling 4 cm x 2 cm on sintilned aspect of left hand just above wrist joint on medial side. 3. Swelling in tendon 5 cm x 6 cm on back of right shoulder in the mid scapula region. In the opinion of Dr. Pramod Kumar D. W. 1, all the injuries of Paramdeo, injuries 1, 3 and 4 of Suraj Phool and injuries Nos. 2 and 3 of Bhawani Pher were simple and all injuries were caused by some blunt weapon and were caused within a day. X-ray was advised for injury No. 2 to Suraj Phool while injury No. 1 of Bhawani Pher was grievous. The injury reports Exts. Kha 2 to Kha 5 were duly proved by Dr. 2 and 3 of Bhawani Pher were simple and all injuries were caused by some blunt weapon and were caused within a day. X-ray was advised for injury No. 2 to Suraj Phool while injury No. 1 of Bhawani Pher was grievous. The injury reports Exts. Kha 2 to Kha 5 were duly proved by Dr. Pramod Kumar D. W. 1. ( 19 ) DR. R. C. Varma D. W. 2 was posted as Medical Officer in District Hospital, Basti and had taken the X-ray of the right hand of accused Bhawani Pher and had prepared the X-ray report Ext. Kha 6. He was of the view that the injury was grievous. ( 20 ) WE have carefully gone through the evidence of those defence witnesses. These two witnesses are members of the State Medical Service and they absolutely have no connection with either of the parties. They are independent and impartial witnesses and they simply deposed about their acts which were performed by them in the discharge of their official duties. They are not supposed to tell a lie. They had no interest in the case. Nothing has come out in their cross-examination from which it could be inferred that these witnesses were not telling the truth. Thus, the evidence of these defence witnesses is indicative of the fact that all these four accused Jagdish Ojba, Paramdeo Ojha, Suraj Phool and Bhawani Pher had sustained injuries at about the same time the occurrence is said to have taken place. The injuries of Jagdish Ojha and Bhawani Pher were not insignificant Accused Jagdish Ojha had incised wound upon the top of scalp and had also a contused wound 8 cm above right eye brow. Accused Bhawani Pher had fracture upon right wrist joint. ( 21 ) THE case of the prosecution regarding the main occurrence rests upon the evidence of Trishool Nath P. W. 1, Paras Nath P. W. 2, Ram Autar P. W. 3, Narain Datt P. W. 4, Adya Prasad Ojha P. W. 5 and Om Prakash Saxena P. W. 6 in the case. We have already detailed the version of Trishool P. W. 1 in the statement of the case and the same need not be repeated. We have already detailed the version of Trishool P. W. 1 in the statement of the case and the same need not be repeated. Paras Nath P. W. 2, Ram Autar P. W. 3, Narain Datt P. W. 4 and Adya Prasad Ojha P. W. 5 have corroborated the evidence of Trishool Nath P. W. 1 and have implicated all these six accused persons in the occurrence in which Swami Nath and Trishool Nath had sustained, injuries. On Prakash Saxena, P. W. 6 has stated that he was posted as Kanungo in the Consolidation Department of District Basti in March, 1978 and on 21st March, 1978 he had gone to plot Chak No. 49 in village Khairee at about 7. 30 A. M. He has claimed that Lekhpal Kaushal Kishore and accused Jagdish Ojha, Shitla Prasad and Pradhan Ayodhya Prasad and others were with him and that he had started plotting Chak No. 49 on the spot. He has also given out that he was plotting Chak No. 49 in the northern portion and some hot words were being exchanged for the southern portion of the Chak No. 49. He along with Lekhpal had then run away towards north. In cross-examination tie stated that the members of one party and Pradhan were with him when they had gone to plot Chak No. 49. He has also stated that the deceased swami Nath had indeed asked him not to plot Chak No. 49. He was not in a position to state as to who was involved in the quarrel, but he is quite categorical when he states that Jagdish Ojha, Shitla Prasad and others, who had accompanied him, were unarmed. ( 22 ) WE have scrutinised the evidence of these witnesses in the light of the arguments advanced at the Bar. ( 23 ) IT is not disputed that Swami Nath died as a result of the injuries sustained in the occurrence in which atleast four of these accused persons were involved. The fact that Trishool Nath P. W. 1 also sustained injuries in the said occurrence is also not disputed, but the question arises whether the prosecution has come out with the correct version of the occurrence. The fact that Trishool Nath P. W. 1 also sustained injuries in the said occurrence is also not disputed, but the question arises whether the prosecution has come out with the correct version of the occurrence. ( 24 ) THAT main circumstance which weighed with the trial court in treating the case of the prosecution as doubtful was that there was no explanation of the injuries of accused Jagdish Ojha, Paramdeo Ojha, Suraj Phool and Bhawani Pher in the F. I. R. of the statements of these witnesses which were recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr. P. C. In their examinationin-chief, these witnesses have no. where stated that any one from their side had assaulted these four accused persons during the course of occurrence. Trishool Nath P. W. 1, whose presence upon the scene of occurrence is not open to doubt, has maintained in his cross-examination that no one was added with lathi from his side and that he was not aware if anyone from his side had wielded lathi and Pharsa upon Jagdish Ojha, Suraj Phool, Paramdeo and Bhawani Pher. He had also insisted that he did not see any injury upon the person many of these four accused persons. Paras Nath P. W. 2 has also stated in his cross-examination that no one from his side was added with Danda or lathi and that they were present there without any arm. He did state in his cross-examination that at a distance of half mile from the place of occurrence, he saw Jagdish Ojha in an injured condition. Ram Autar P. W. 3 admitted in his cross-examination that he did see injuries of Jagdish Ojha upon the place of occurrence. Narain Datt P. W. 4 also admitted in his cross-examination that at a distance of 45 paces from the place of occurrence, he saw Jagdish Ojha in an injured condition and that blood was coming out of the injury of Jagdish Ojha. Adya Prasad Ojha P. W. 5 has stated in his cross-examination that the villagers Tirath Raj and Dma Nath had assaulted Jagdish Ojha when the villagers had chased the accused. ( 25 ) THUS it is obvious that the first two witnesses did not admit that accused Jagdish Ojha or his three colleagues had sustained any injury during the course of occurrence. ( 25 ) THUS it is obvious that the first two witnesses did not admit that accused Jagdish Ojha or his three colleagues had sustained any injury during the course of occurrence. The remaining three witnesses have mentioned in their cross-examination the fact that accused Jagdish had sustained injuries but they have not given any cogent or plausible explanation as to how and under what circumstances Jagdish Ojha and these three co-accused had sustained the injuries. As we have already observed that the injuries of Ojha and Suraj Phool cannot be treated lightly and it is not open to the prosecution to say that these injuries were insignificant and could be explained. It is now well settled that where it is shown or proved that some of the accused persons had sustained injuries which were significant and on vital part of the body during the course of the occurrence in which the main person died heavy burden rests upon the prosecution to offer plausible explanation for the injuries of accused persons. If no satisfactory and plausible explanation in forthcoming at the earliest opportunity i. e. either in the F. I. R. or in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. within a day of two of the occurrence, the conclusion is irresistible that the prosecution was not coming out with the correct and true version of the occurrence. ( 26 ) UNDER these circumstances, the Court is fully empowered to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution and the benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused and we agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. ( 27 ) THE appeal is dismissed. The respondents are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds. The bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged. Appeal dismissed. .