FAKHRUDDIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of the accused respondents for an offence punishable under Section 307/149 of the I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that there was dispute between Virendra Kumar (P. W. 1) and family members of accused Praphulla over the landed property. In a case Virendrasingh (P. W. 2) had give evidence on behalf of Virendra Kumar (P. W. 1) and because of that accused respondent Praphulla bore ill-will. On the date of incident i. e. 8. 1. 1978, being Somwati Amavasya Virendrasingh (P. W. 2), Bhagwansingh (P. W. 4) and Ramratan (P. W. 7) at about 4-5 P. M. proceeded from their village to Vidisha for taking bath in the river. They had just walked about 4 furlong and reached the bus stand. They sat near the well situated at the bus stand and were waiting. At that sper accused Sumit came from His floor mill and called Virendrasingh. Soonafter Virendrasingh reached near the floor Mill, accused Praphulla armed with Farsa and rest of the accused persons armed with lathies came from the hut adjacent to the floor Mill and attacked on Virendrasingh. Accused Praphulla caused 3-4 Farsa blows. Virendera Singh fell down. Then, other accused persons given lathies blows on his body including head, leg, elbow and left hands fingers. Thereafter, accused persons ran away from the spot. ( 3 ) IT is alleged that Bhagwansingh and Ramratan came there and tied cloth on the injuries. At the same time Gumansingh (who has not been examined) came there to whom they narrated the incident and told him to inform Virendra Kumar, who was accordingly informed. Thereafter, Virendra Kumar phoned to P. S. Vidisha and reached Hirnoi bus stand, where Virendrasingh was lying injured and in unconscious position. They managed for a tractor trolly in which Virendrasingh, Bhagwansingh and Ramratan went to Vidisha Hospital and admitted injured Virendra Singh. Thereafter, Virendra Kumar (P. W. 1) reported the matter to the police, registered as Ex. P/i. ( 4 ) DR. R. C. Rai (P. W. 3) examined Virendrasingh and found as many as 8 injuries on his body, as per his report Ex. P/2. Dr. J. L. Agarwal took X-ray, as per X-ray plates Ex. P/5 to P17. Thereafter, Virendra Kumar (P. W. 1) reported the matter to the police, registered as Ex. P/i. ( 4 ) DR. R. C. Rai (P. W. 3) examined Virendrasingh and found as many as 8 injuries on his body, as per his report Ex. P/2. Dr. J. L. Agarwal took X-ray, as per X-ray plates Ex. P/5 to P17. ( 5 ) DURING investigation, Sub Inspector Dantre (P. W. 5) seized clothes of injured vide Ex. P/3. He also inspected the spot and prepared spot map Ex. P/4. After completing the investigation challan against the accused-respondents was filed. ( 6 ) DURING trial, the accused-respondents abjured the guilt and pleaded that due to previous ill will they have been falsely implicated. Accused Praphulla, in his defence, had stated that he alongwith other villagers, had complained of theft against Virendra Singh and that Virendra Kumar (P. W. 1) had engaged Virendrasingh and Bhagwansingh to pick a quarrel. On the date of incident, when he (Praphulla) was coming from Barihai to Hirnoi, near the bus stand 6-7 persons were standing armed with lathies. As soon as he proceeded towards floor Mill Virendrasingh caused him Farsa blow which hit o his hand. Then, he caught hold Farsa and started scuffling. At the same time Ashok gave a lathi blow on his back. He, thereafter, pushed Virendrasingh, who fell down on a drum near the road. Other accused were not present there. Some documents were also produced in defence, to show disputes between the family of Praphulla and Virendra Kumar. D. W. 1 Narainsingh (an eye-witness, but not examined by the prosecution) was examined as defence witness. ( 7 ) THE learned Sessions Judge, after considering the material on record, come to the conclusion that defence version appears to be reliable and further held that Virendrasingh and his companions attacked Praphulla; praphulla caught hold of Farsa and in scuffle Virendra Singh sustained injuries. He was, then, failed down by pushing or caused lathi blows which resulted in injuries on his person including fractures. The learned trial Judge, found that prosecution has failed to prove his case and the injuries caused by the accused-respondents in right of self defence, and, by giving benefit of doubt acquitted the accused-respondents. Hence, this appeal by the State. ( 8 ) SHRI M. M. Qureshi, Dy. The learned trial Judge, found that prosecution has failed to prove his case and the injuries caused by the accused-respondents in right of self defence, and, by giving benefit of doubt acquitted the accused-respondents. Hence, this appeal by the State. ( 8 ) SHRI M. M. Qureshi, Dy. Government Advocate, contended that the plea of self defence has not been taken specifically and the trial Court has committed illegality in holding that the accused persons acted in right of private defence. This contention has no force, the plea of private defence can be taken at any stage of the trial. It may even be taken in the cross-examination of the witnesses by way of suggestions or even in the statement of accused u/s. 313 of the Cr. P. C. In the instant case, such plea has been taken in the cross-examination of the witnesses. The trial Court has considered this aspect in marshal evidence in its proper perspective. The trial Court after carefully scrutinising the evidence has come to the conclusion that the injuries were not such as to bring the offence u/s. 307 of the I. P. C. The Court has further, come to the conclusion that, on the basis of evidence on record specially the evidence of Dr. Rai (P. W. 3), such injuries may come during scuffle between two persons. The injury on left handts fingers Panja may also be due to fall. ( 9 ) ACCUSED-RESPONDENT Praphulla lodged a report immediately at. 7. 55 p. m. i. e. , prior to the report lodged against the accused-respondents, which was lodged at 8. 25 p. m. On the report of accused Praphulla an offence u/ss. 324, 323, 149 and. 148 I. P. C. was registered and a case was filed before the C. J. M. Vidisha, which was pending at the time of trial. ( 10 ) APART, the injuries on the person of the accused have also not been explained by the prosecution and the non-explanation of the injuries, in the facts and circumstances of this case creates serious infirmity. The finding recorded by the trial Court, therefore, can not be said to be unreasonable. ( 11 ) REGARDING appeal against acquittal, it has been held by the Supreme Court in A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 1083 (Tota Singh and Anr. The finding recorded by the trial Court, therefore, can not be said to be unreasonable. ( 11 ) REGARDING appeal against acquittal, it has been held by the Supreme Court in A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 1083 (Tota Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab), as under"the mere fact that the appellate Court is inclined on reappreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal. The jurisdiction of the appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order pf acquittal unless approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously is therefore liable to be characterised as perverse. Where two views are possible on appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the Court below has taken a view it is plausible one, the appellate Court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous. " ( 12 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances stated above, we are of the opinion that this is not a case where it can be said that the learned Sessions Judge come to a palpably wrong conclusion on the evidence or that the reasons for acquittal of the accused are manifestly erroneous shocking ones sense of justice. The finding of acquittal is well merited. The appeal has no merit, it is, accordingly, dismissed. The respondents are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Appeal dismissed. .