ORDER : K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the complainant in which special leave was granted. The complainant is no other than the father of the deceased Gopi Chand. In the occurrence, Gopi Chand received one incised wound, one lacerated wound and one swelling and his three brothers received some simple injuries, some of them being incised wounds but all put together, six abrasions and four incised wounds and two lacerated wounds etc. In respect of this occurrence, 14 accused were tried but the trial court convicted 8 of them under Section 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code and each one of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life as well as for minor offences. They preferred an appeal to the High Court and the High Court acquitted all of them. Hence this appeal by the complainant, the father of the deceased. The State has not come forward with any appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court relied on the dying declaration to the extent corroborated by two other witnesses and had rightly convicted the 8 accused. We find in the trial court judgment that the appellant-complainant was the first person to give report which was registered as FIR mentioning 11 accused. In the dying declaration, only 8 names were mentioned. That apart, the allegation is that all these accused surrounded and inflicted injuries indiscriminately on the deceased and on the two witnesses. The contents of the dying declaration in all respects are on the same line as mentioned in the FIR and the complaint given by the appellant. The trial court held that the version given by the appellant in the FIR is not at all reliable and if that is the finding then the version in the dying declaration is doubtful because that version came into existence after the FIR was given and the opportunity of being tutored cannot be ruled out. The High Court, however, has given some more reasons which are very relevant. Smt Patra, mother of the appellant 1, received two grievous injuries. Apart from her, four persons belonging to the accused party also received injuries. The prosecution has not put forward any explanation as to how they happened to receive injuries. The High Court, however, has given some more reasons which are very relevant. Smt Patra, mother of the appellant 1, received two grievous injuries. Apart from her, four persons belonging to the accused party also received injuries. The prosecution has not put forward any explanation as to how they happened to receive injuries. The finding is that they have also received the injuries during the course of the same occurrence and as a matter of fact, the appellant was the first person to go to the police station to give a report. The trial court simply brushed aside these circumstances by saying that the prosecution party need not explain the injuries. However, the fact remains that the prosecution has failed to explain how these accused received injuries on their persons. The High Court has also pointed out that the earlier version given by P.W. 1 was unreliable and in such a situation the version given in the dying declaration, under the circumstances, also becomes doubtful. The view taken by the High Court cannot be said to be unreasonable. No doubt, the High Court held that the accused might have exercised the right of self-defence but the learned counsel for the appellant submits that such a plea has not been taken. It is not necessary for the accused to set up a specific plea but can rely on the circumstances and if doubt arises regarding the same, the High Court can give the benefit to the accused. That apart, there is great divergence in the version in the FIR, the version in the dying declaration and the version given by other witnesses, i.e. that all these accused surrounded and inflicted injuries indiscriminately. These versions are also not supported by the medical evidence. For the above reasons, we see no grounds to interfere. 3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.