(1) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. (2) THIS is an appeal against acquittal. There are seven respondents. The trial court convicted them under S. 148, 302. 379 and 302/149 Indian Penal Code etc. and also under Section 27 of the arms Act and accordingly sentenced them. On appeal, the High court set aside the convictions. Hence the appeal by the State (i.e. Crl. Appeal No. 430 of 1983. The complainant Mukhtiar Singh has filed the Special Leave Petition No. 342 of 1983 against the same judgment. (3) THE prosecution case is as follows : (4) THE accused and the two deceased persons and PWs 7 and 8 belong to Village Patti. There were disputes between the accused on the one side and the deceased and PWs on the- other. According to the prosecution, the deceased Gopal Singh was in possession of the custodian land and the accused gurbux Singh (A-l) wanted to take possession of the land forcefully and proceedings under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code were also lodged. On the intervening night of 29-8- 1981 and 30/8/1981, Gopal Singh - the deceased along with his son Mukhtiar Singh (Public WiTNEss ) started for their fields at about 10.30 p.m. Gopal Singh also took a .12 bore gun along with him. While they were in the field it is alleged that all the seven accused, including Hardip Singh (since dead) - brother of Gurbux Singh armed with Kirpans and Gandhasis came over there. Sukha Singh was armed with a .12 bore gun. They raised lalkaras and the attack commenced. It is alleged that Karaj Singh (D-2 came closer to Gopal Singh (D-l) and at that juncture A-1 challenged and exhorted the other accused. Hardip Singh then opened the attack and gave a Kirpan blow on Karaj Singh - deceased 2. When Hardip Singh advanced towards Gopal Singh, the latter shot Hardip Singh dead. Then, according to the prosecution, the accused attacked Gopal Singh with Kirpans and other weapons and also attacked Karaj Singh (D-2 who was lying in the ground. Thereafter the accused took away the dead body of Hardip Singh and left the place. The dead bodies of Gopal Singh and Karaj Singh, according to the prosecution were also dragged for some distance. Public WiTNEss 7 and Public WiTNEss % were in the neighbouring fields and they came over there and alleged to have wiTNEssed the occurrence. Thereafter the accused took away the dead body of Hardip Singh and left the place. The dead bodies of Gopal Singh and Karaj Singh, according to the prosecution were also dragged for some distance. Public WiTNEss 7 and Public WiTNEss % were in the neighbouring fields and they came over there and alleged to have wiTNEssed the occurrence. Public WiTNEss 7 gave the report. Thereafter inquest was held and the dead bodies were sent for post-mortem. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem found on Gopal Singh the gunshot injuries and on Karaj Singh incised wounds. (5) IT may be mentioned at this stage, Hardip Singh who accompanied the accused received injuries and died and also Salwinder Singh - another accused also received gunshot injuries. The doctor Public WiTNEss 2 examined the dead body and found several injuries. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid. When examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, the accused came forward with a specific plea of self-defence and stated that when they were taking water in the fields, the two deceased and their henchmen attacked Hardip Singh and killed him and also caused injuries to Salwinder Singh and when Gopal Singh and the accused were struggling, gun went off which caused injuries to deceased 1. It was also their plea that Karaj Singh fired twice hitting Hardip Singh and Salwinder Singh. The sum and substance of their plea is that it was the prosecution party who were the aggressors. Learned Sessions Judge taking into consideration the two persons dead on the prosecution side and the accused must have attacked later, therefore, they were the aggressors and they had no right of self-defence and accordingly convicted them. The High court on the other hand, held that the prosecution has not come out with the whole truth, particularly regarding the genesis of the occurrence and the gunshot injuries on Salwinder Singh - one of the accused, have not been explained. The version given by the two eyewiTNEsses - PWs 7 and 8 as to the manner in which Hardip Singh met his death is not acceptable. The High court reached the conclusion that the plea of the accused that they acted in the right of self- defence cannot be denied, and. accordingly acquitted all the accused. The version given by the two eyewiTNEsses - PWs 7 and 8 as to the manner in which Hardip Singh met his death is not acceptable. The High court reached the conclusion that the plea of the accused that they acted in the right of self- defence cannot be denied, and. accordingly acquitted all the accused. (6) IT is well-settled that when the abused set up a plea of self-defence, they need noi prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt and within the parameters under section 103, if by preponderance of probabilities, the pica taken fay them becomes plausible then the same should be accepted or at least, a benefit of doubt arises. In the instant case, the prosecution has not at all explained the injuries on Salwinder Singh. The plea of the accused that when they were taking water the two deceased persons along with their henchmen came over there and in the first instance Karaj Singh (D-2 shot on Hardip Singh cannot be rejected outright. However, Public WiTNEss 7 and Public WiTNEss 8 are partisans and they are not even injured and their version also cannot be accepted in toto. However, in this case neither can it be said that the accused should be denied the right of self-defence nor can it be said that they exceeded the same. The view taken by the High court cannot be held to be unreasonable as to warrant any interference in a case against acquittal. The appeal as well as the special leave petition are dismissed accordingly.