JUDGMENT 1. Accused appellant Gajraj Singh has been convicted under section 302 IPC. He has also been convicted under section 148, 307/149 I.P.C. Accused appellant Rajpal has been convicted under section 148, 323, 307/149, 302/149 IPC and accused Baney Singh has been convicted while Pyara Singh, Hukam Singh and Mahendra Singh have been convicted under section 148, 307, 148, 302/149 IPC. Each of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay fine under various counts. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. From a look at the site plan (Ex.P. 2) and as per the facts of the case, it appears that there is a Chabutara of accused appellant Pyar Singh in Nagla Jharkai, Police Station Nadbai and adjoining it is the KHALIHAN which has been shown by letter `U in the site plan. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.2.1989, the accused appellant Pyare Singh made an attempt to encroach on the land of the `Gaint' of deceased Motilal. Earlier also, some part of the Gaint had been encroached upon and a platform had been by Pyar Singh. When the deceased asked the accused- appellant Pyar Singh not to do so, there was some exchange of abuses in between them and the other accused appellants arrived there out of which the accused appellant Gajraj Singh and Baney Singh were armed with Farsa and rest were armed with lathis. Accused appellant Pyar Singh is said to have exhorted other accused appellants to see Moti and at this, as per the case of the prosecution in the FIR, accused appellant Gajraj Singh who was armed with a Farsa gave a blow on the head of the deceased and the other accused Hukam Singh gave a blow at the feet of Moti, as a result of which he fell on the ground. When Ram Swaroop and Charan Singh intervened they too were given beating. Motilal was taken in injured condition first to the hospital at Nadbai where his injuries were examined vide Ex.P. 16 by Dr. Sukhram (PW-10) who found that there were two injuries on his person, the first was swelling (haemotoma) with multiple small lacerated wound 1/2 x 1/2cm on left and right parietal of scalp and hematoma of middle part. The other injury was also lacerated wound 2 x 1cm on the right leg. Sukhram (PW-10) who found that there were two injuries on his person, the first was swelling (haemotoma) with multiple small lacerated wound 1/2 x 1/2cm on left and right parietal of scalp and hematoma of middle part. The other injury was also lacerated wound 2 x 1cm on the right leg. Motilal was in a serious condition and was advised to be taken to the General Hospital, Bharatpur, where he died on 13.2.1989 and PW-II Dr. Bhopal Singh conducted the autopsy of his dead-body. He found the same external injuries as were found by Dr. Sukhram (PW/10) and in his opinion the injuries could be caused by blunt weapon and injury No. 1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 3. Dr. Sukhram (PW-10) had also examined the injuries of Ram Swaroop and Charan Singh, vide injury reports Ex.P. 17 and Ex.P. 18 respectively. The doctor found that there was an incised wound 6 x l/2cm x bone deep on the right side of the parietal region of scalp. X-ray was also advised. On x-ray which was conducted by PW-9 Dr. Satish Chandra Vyas it was found that there was fracture of the frontal bone, as revealed from the x-ray plate Ex.P. 13 and 14. There was also one bruise on Post. Lat, aspect of elbow joint. This injury was simple. Charan Singh had only one injury - a lacerated wound 5 x 1cm x bone deep on left parietal region of scalp. He too was examined by Dr. Sukhram (PW-10) and as per his statement, the injury was received by blunt weapon but it is not known whether any x-ray was conducted and therefore, the injury has to be taken as simple. 4. The accused persons were arrested and-put on trial. They pleaded not guilty. It may also be stated that there was cross FIR, as has been mentioned by PW-13 Narpat Singh, S.H.O. But it is not known as to what was the result in that case. 5. The police had in fact not filed any charge-sheet against Baney Singh and Rajpal and it appears that cognizance was taken by the court against them also. 5. The police had in fact not filed any charge-sheet against Baney Singh and Rajpal and it appears that cognizance was taken by the court against them also. Accused persons pleaded that they had a right of private defence of their person and therefore, even if it is held that any injuries had been caused by them, they did not commit any offence and in support of the plea they submitted their injury reports which are Ex.D-6, Ex.D.7 and Ex.D. 8. The case of the defence was that in fact it was the complainant party which had come armed and started demolishing the platform of Pyar Singh and when Pyar Singh had asked not to do so, it was the complainant party which had caused injuries to the above named persons. 6. Learned Sessions Judge placing reliance on the case of the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as aforesaid. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the accused appellants and the Additional Public Prosecutor and have gone through the evidence in the case. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused appellants that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a case where it can be said that the common intention of the accused persons was to cause death of the deceased or even to cause injury to any of the persons including Moti Lal. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that it is an admitted case, even of the prosecution, that the platform of Pyar Singh was adjoining the Khalihan of the deceased and therefore, according to the prosecution story the occurrence is said to have taken place when Pyar Singh was making an attempt to encroach upon a portion of the land of Gaint of deceased by extending the platform. The occurrence therefore took place all of a sudden and only two injuries arc said to have been caused to the deceased. In the FIR the prosecution came out with the case that Gajraj Singh accused appellant caused injury with Farsa to the deceased Moti, when in fact, the said injury as per the injury report (Ex.P.16) had been caused by blunt object. However, during the course of examination of witnesses it has been admitted that the injury was caused by blunt side of the Farsa. However, during the course of examination of witnesses it has been admitted that the injury was caused by blunt side of the Farsa. The other injury which was simple in nature, was caused by Hukam Singh on the leg of the deceased. He therefore contends that if the intention of the accused Gajraj Singh would have been to cause death of the deceased, he would have used the sharp side of the Farsa and only two injuries could not have been caused and the blow would have been repeated. 8. We are therefore of the opinion that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 149 IPC could hardly be attracted. We have already extracted in the earlier part of this judgement not only the injuries which were received by the deceased but also the injuries which were received by Ram Swaroop and Ramcharan. The total number of injuries received on behalf of the prosecution side was five. The number of the accused persons was said to be six and therefore, all the accused persons could not have caused injuries to the three persons and the number of injuries could not have been five. That apart, it has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that so far as the accused appellants Baney Singh and Rajpal are concerned, it was not stated by the witnesses in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. that any of them had caused injuries either to Ram Swaroop or Charan Singh. Both the witnesses PW-2 Ram Swaroop and PW-3 Charan Singh were confronted with their police statements wherein they had not stated that these two accused persons did not cause any injury to any of them, but they could not explain the conflict. Not only this, a look at the statement of PW-4 Sohan Lal, an eye witnesses of the occurrence, will show that though in his statement in the court he has said that the accused appellant Baney Singh was armed with a Farsa and the other accused appellant Rajpal was armed with a lathi and they had caused injuries to Ram Swaroop but when he was confronted with his police statement (Ex.D. 4) wherein it has not been categorically slated that they had caused any injuries, he could not explain the conflict. A look at Ex.D. 4 with which PW-4 Sohan Lal was confronted, is necessary. A look at Ex.D. 4 with which PW-4 Sohan Lal was confronted, is necessary. In Ex.D. 4, portion A to B it was deposed by Sohan Lal that though both the accused persons Baney Singh and Rajpal Singh were present there but Sohan Lal did not see any of them giving any blows. It has been stated in the statement recorded that he did not state before the police portion A to B of Ex.D. 4. It therefore becomes highly doubtful that these two accused appellant Baney Singh and Rajpal Singh had taken any part in giving beating to even Ram Swaroop. That apart, a look at the statement of the S.H.O. Narpat Singh (PW-13) shows that after investigation, his conclusion was that these two accused persons were not accused in the case. Though the conclusions of the Station House Officer are not relevant but even otherwise, from the perusal of the record, the participation of these two accused persons Baney Singh and Rajpal Singh becomes doubtful. If that be so, the number of accused persons would be less than five and even otherwise, Section 149 IPC will not be attracted so also Section 148 IPC will not be attracted. We are therefore of the opinion that it is a case where the occurrence appears to have taken place all of a sudden, without any premeditation, on a petty matter either about the encroachment over the land or on demolition of the Chabutara which might have been constructed or extended by Pyar Singh. Thus, Section 149 IPC is not attracted. 9. So far as Gajraj Singh, accused appellant is concerned, it was the case of the prosecution that he was armed with a Farsa and gave a blow with it on the head of the deceased. We have already referred to the FIR (Ex.P.l) which was lodged, as said above, by Prem in which the prosecution came out with the case that accused Gajraj Singh was armed with a Farsa and gave a blow with it. It was not stated therein that he had used the blunt side of the Farsa but during the course of cross-examination, Prem as well as other witnesses i.e. PW-2 Ram Swaroop, PW-3 Charan Singh and PW-4 Sohan Lal and PW-5 Rajulal stated that he had used the blunt side of the Farsa. It was not stated therein that he had used the blunt side of the Farsa but during the course of cross-examination, Prem as well as other witnesses i.e. PW-2 Ram Swaroop, PW-3 Charan Singh and PW-4 Sohan Lal and PW-5 Rajulal stated that he had used the blunt side of the Farsa. So far as Pyar Singh is concerned, in the FIR as well as in the statements of the witnesses it has come that he exhorted the other accused persons to give beating to the deceased. It is not the case either in the FIR or the statements of the witnesses that Pyar Singh had given any blow by any weapon to either the deceased or to Ram Swaroop (PW-2) or Charan Singh (PW-3). In this case, as per the prosecution version the incident took place on 11.2.1989 and the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is only 11 Kms. but surprisingly, the FIR (Ex.P.l) was lodged only on 14.2.1989. The prosecution has not explained the delay in the lodging of the FIR. Delay in lodging the report, in criminal cases, is fatal unless it is satisfactorily explained. If this delay is looked into the background that the injuries received by the accused persons in the same occurrence, have not been explained, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and at any rate, it can be said that no reliance can be placed on the case of the prosecution. 10. It will be seen from the statement of Dr. Bhopal Singh (PW-11) that on 12.2.1989 he had examined the injuries of Gajraj Singh, Daryayi Bai, Mahendra Singh and Hukam Singh and he found that Gajraj Singh had two injuries, injury No. 1 was a cut wound on the parietal region while injury No. 2 was a reddish swelling. Smt. Dariyayi had as many as six injuries. The duration of the injuries was 12-24 hours and the doctor had advised for x-ray for injury No. 1 and 4. On examining Mahendra Singh, Dr. Bhopal Singh found that he had as many as three injuries and on examining Hukam Singh, he found two injuries on his person. A look at the statement of Dariyayi would show that she has come out with the case and has stated that the accused persons had made an attempt to include a part of their Chabutara in their fields. A look at the statement of Dariyayi would show that she has come out with the case and has stated that the accused persons had made an attempt to include a part of their Chabutara in their fields. The accused persons were armed with Farsa, Dhariya and lathis. In can therefore be said that there is delay of about four days in lodging the report which has not been explained and the injuries of the accused persons have not been explained. We are of the opinion that in the instant case, failure of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused persons makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. 11. Consequently, we hereby allow this appeal, set aside the judgement dated 4.10.1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur, in Sessions Case No. 22/89. The conviction and sentences of each of the accused appellants for various offences as recorded by the trial court under its judgement dated 4.10.90 are set aside. Their sentences are also set aside. They are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Accused appellant Gajraj Singh is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. All other accused persons are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds. Their bail bound stand discharged. *******