D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 19th January, 1980 of Sri S. K. Jain, I Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar convicting the seven appellants under Section 452,147 and 307/149, IPC and sentencing them to undergo two years R. I. under Section 452, IPC six months R. I. under Section 147, IPC and five years R. I. under Section 307/149, I. P. C. Appellants Harbir, Daryav Singh, Ram Chandra and Dharampal were further convicted and sentenced to undergo three years R. I. under Section 307/149, IPC. 2. The prosecution story is that on 23-4-1976 at about 8 a. m. nine persons including the appellants entered the house of Nahar Singh, uncle of the informant Chandra Prakash, armed with spears and Bhalas. In the incident Katar Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Shishpal, Karan Singh and Smt. Banso received injuries. The injured were sent to the hospital through constable Kadam Singh. The Medical Officer at P. H. C. Kandhla, district Muzaf farnagar examined the injured and found their condition serious, hence they were referred to the District Hospital, Muzaffarnagar. X-ray was done at District Hospital, Muzaffar nagar. Some-time was taken in looking after the injured and thereafter a written F. I. R. was lodged. The incident was seen by Kadam Singh, Ujala and Niranjan Singh. They inter vened and saved them. 3. The cause of incident is said to be that on the date of occurrence at about 7. 30 a. m. a quarrel took place between the sons of Nahar Singh and Satyapal. The daughter-in-law of Nahar Singh pulled the ear of the son of Satyapal and gave threat and turned out of her house. The accused belong to the same family. On account of this annoyance, the incident in question took place. 4. Injury report of Katar Singh shows that his general condition was poor. He was semi-conscious. Pulse 10/mt. Res. 24/mt. B. P. 100/60 m. m. He recieved six injuries. Injuries Nos. 1, 5 and 6 were caused by blunt object, while the remaining injuries were caused by sharp object. Injuries No. 1 to 4 were kept under observation, X-ray was advised and the remaining injuries were simple in nature. 5. Shishpal recieved five injuries, out of which three incised injuries and two lacerated injuries. Bushirt and Banyan were cut. Injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 were kept under observation. Injuries No. 1 to 4 were kept under observation, X-ray was advised and the remaining injuries were simple in nature. 5. Shishpal recieved five injuries, out of which three incised injuries and two lacerated injuries. Bushirt and Banyan were cut. Injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 were kept under observation. Injuries No. 4 and 5 were simple. Injuries No. 1 and 4 were caused by blunt object, while the remaining injuries were caused by sharp object. 6. Bhanwar Singh received one lacerated and one incised injury. Both injuries were kept under observation. 7. Smt. Manso received one stab wound. Her shirt and Banyan were also cost. This injury was caused by sharp object and was kept under observation. 8. Karan received one stab injury. It was kept under observation. This injury was caused by sharp object. 9. After usual investigation, the appellants faced the trial. The appellants pleaded not guilty and set up a cross version, according to which a day before the occurrence at about 7. 45 p. m. Bhanwar Singh and his son Shishpal diverted the water towards their field, whereupon exchange of abuses took place between Bhanwar Singh and Jai Chandra. Jai Chandra ran away from the scene of occurrence. Next day in the morning at about 8 a. m. when Jai Chandra, Kali Ram, Dharampal, Daryav Singh, Harbir Singh, Pitam Singh, Ram Chandra and Randhir Singh were sitting in the Baithak of Dharampal that Bhanwar Singh, Shishpal, Amar Singh, Karan Singh, Tal Singh and Chandra Prakash armed with Lathis, spears and Barchhi reached there and started beating them. Kali Ram and Dariyav received injuries. In self-defence Kali Ram snatched the spear from Tal Singh and Dariyav snatched Lathi from Chandra Prakash and plied the same in self-defence. 10. The appellants in their defence examined PW-1 Devi Singh. 11. After considering the entire evidence on record the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the charges against the appellants were proved. Kali Ram died during the pendency of the case. Accordingly the appelants were convicted and sentenced. The learned counsel for the appellants has raised four points in support of his contentions that the judgment and order under appeal cannot be sustained. The first point raised by him was that on the medical evidence on record, no case under Section 307, IPC is made out. This contention can be accepted. Accordingly the appelants were convicted and sentenced. The learned counsel for the appellants has raised four points in support of his contentions that the judgment and order under appeal cannot be sustained. The first point raised by him was that on the medical evidence on record, no case under Section 307, IPC is made out. This contention can be accepted. Supplementary injury report of Bhanwar Singh shows that no radiological bony injury was seen in the skull. Only fracture of left ulna was seen. Ulna is not vital part of the body. There is no supplementary injury report to show that the injury of Bhanwar Singh could prove fatal. At the most his injury was grievous and grievous injury on non-vital part of the body will not make out a case under Section 307, IPC. 12. Katar Singh received two punctured, one incised and three lacerated injuries. According to the injury report, some of the injuries were caused by sharp object and the remaining injuries by blunt object. X- ray was advised. Again there is no supplementary injury report. Dr. V. K. Gupta has not stated that any of the injuries of Katar Singh could prove fatal. Similarly there is no evidence that the injuries of Shishpal could prove fatal. There is no supplementary injury report regarding his injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 which were kept under observation. 13. Smt. Manso received a stab injury, which was kept under observation, but again there is no supplementary injury report showing that this injury could prove fatal. 14. Karan Singh received one stab injury which was kept under observation but again there is no supplementary injury report that this injury could prove fatal. 15. Bhanwar Singh received one lacerated injury and one incised injury. Both injuries were kept under observation, but again there is no supplementary injury report indicating that these injuries could prove fatal. If there is no medical opinion that the injuries on vital part were grievous and could prove fatai, a case under Section 307, IPC could not be made out. 16. The next contention has been that the injuries on the side of the accused have not been explained by the prosecution, which renders the prosecution story doubtful. My attention was drawn to the injury reports of Dariyav and Kali Ram. Kali Ram is now dead. Dariyav had received two lacerated injuries on left side of scalp. 16. The next contention has been that the injuries on the side of the accused have not been explained by the prosecution, which renders the prosecution story doubtful. My attention was drawn to the injury reports of Dariyav and Kali Ram. Kali Ram is now dead. Dariyav had received two lacerated injuries on left side of scalp. These two skull injuries could not be manufactured nor any reasonable man would manufacture these injuires on vital part of the body. Kali Ram received contusions on his left chest and three linear incised injuries on the left leg middle, part, swelling etc. Seeing the injuries it looks improbable that these injuries could be manufactured. The injuries of two persons on the side of the accused have neither been explained in the FIR nor by the witnesses examined by the prosecution. Some attempt was made by Chandra Prakash PW-1 to explain these injuries in cross-examination. He stated that Dariyav and Kali Ram on the side of the accused, received injuries. He further stated that Karan Singh in his self-defence plied stone on account of which Dariyav received injuries. Dariyav received two lacerated injuries which could not be caused by a single blow of stone. Regarding Kali Ram he stated that Kali Ram was an old person. He was given a push by Shishpal due to which he fell down and sustained injuries. Injury report of Kali Ram shows that five injuries could not be received by fall on account of push. Injuries were on chest, left thigh, left leg etc. Fall on one side could not have resulted in so much injuries on different portion of the body. In my view the injuries on the side of the accused have not been explained. This will certainly render the prosecution story suspicious. 17. The prosecution story cannot be accepted simply because the injury reports of the injured on the side of the prosecution have been proved. The prosecution is to succeed on the strength of its own case. It cannot gain advantage of the weakness of the defence. If the injuries of two persons on the side of the accused could not be explained, the true genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed and the eye- witnesses have not given correct version of the prosecution case. Suppression of genesis of prosecution story is further fleeted from the material on record. If the injuries of two persons on the side of the accused could not be explained, the true genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed and the eye- witnesses have not given correct version of the prosecution case. Suppression of genesis of prosecution story is further fleeted from the material on record. The FIR shows that the accused were armed with spears and Bhalas. There is no mention in the FIR that any accused was armed with Lathi. Lathi has been concealed-even in the statements of witnesses under Section 161, Cr. P. C. The injuries of the accused have not been explained in the FIR and also in the statements of the witnesses under Section 161, Cr. P. C. Material development was made during recording of evidence when Lathi was introduced. Suppression of lathi in the FIR and also in the statements given before the Investigating Officer, indicates that the true genesis of the prosecution story has been suppressed. 18. The use of the Bhala is also not free from doubt. Bhala is a round shaped pointed object. It is different from a spear whose blades are sharp edged on both side. Dr. V. K. Gupta PW-5 admitted in cross-examination that no injured sustained any injury by a weapon which had a round pointed shape. This, therefore, creates doubt that Bhala was also used in the incident. Incised and punctured injuries could be caused by spear. If the use of Lathi was suppressed and at the earliest opportunity in the FIR and in the state ments under Section 161, Cr. P. C. and the use of Bhala has been ruled out, from the medical evidence it can again be inferred that the true genesis of the prosecution has been suppressed. It was not for the accused to explain how injuries were recieved by the injured on the side of the complainant. On the other hand, it was for the prosecution to prove beyond doubt how the injured on the side of the complainant received injuries. 19. Shifting the place of occurrence also indicates that true genesis of the incident has been suppressed. Shifting the place of occurrence has always been considered to be fatal. In the written FIR the place of incident is mentioned to be inside the house of Nahar Singh. 19. Shifting the place of occurrence also indicates that true genesis of the incident has been suppressed. Shifting the place of occurrence has always been considered to be fatal. In the written FIR the place of incident is mentioned to be inside the house of Nahar Singh. The site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer shows that no incident took place inside the house of Nahar Singh. On the other hand, the incident took place in the lane, which was a common passage as shown in the site plan. PW-1 Chadra Prakash has stated that the appellant entered the court-yard of the house of Nahar Singh and started beating there. In cross-examination he again stated that the incidcni took place inside the house of Nahar Singh. If the place of incident was inside the house, blood should have been found there, but the witness has stated that blood was seen inside the house, but he did not remember whether the blood stained earth was taken by the Investigating Officer from the place inside the house. The Investigating Officer on the other hand, has stated that no blood was found at the place of occurrence, which means no blood was found either inside the house or in the lane. Chandra Prakash told the Investigating Officer that Marpeet took place in the lane in front of the house of Katar Singh. Thus this witness has deviated from the FIR before the Investigating Officer that the incident took place inside the house. The Investigating Officer has further stated that the informant did not state that the scene of occurrence was inside the house. Chandra Prakash admitted in cross-examination that he did not see any blood outside the house. In view of his changing the place, it is clear that the place of occurrence has been shifted by him, which is certainly fatal for the prosecution and in any case it is capable of creating reasonable suspicion in the prosectuion story. He could not assign any reason why the Investigating Officer has shown the place of occurrence outside the house. The Investigating Officer had no enmity with him nor he had any affinity with the appellants. 20. PW-2 Katar Singh has also stated that the incident took place inside the Sahan, whch means shifting the place of occurrence. He has given a different version of the incident. The Investigating Officer had no enmity with him nor he had any affinity with the appellants. 20. PW-2 Katar Singh has also stated that the incident took place inside the Sahan, whch means shifting the place of occurrence. He has given a different version of the incident. According to him the Investigating Officer Jai Chandra, Randhir, Surender, Pitam, Harbir etc. , came and ten minutes thereafter Ram Chandra, Dariyav and Dharam-pal came having Lathi etc. The other witnesses have stated that all the accused came together. 21. PW-4 Rishal Singh has stated that the incident took place inside the Sahan of the house. This shifting the place of occurrence has two effects. The first is that true genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed and secondly it is doubtful where the incident took place. 22. The next contention has been that the motive suggested by the prosecution in doubtful. Even if this plea and contention is ignored, I find that there is sufficient material on record to conclude that true genesis of the prosecution story has been suppressed. 23. It is also important to mention that no witness of the locality was examined. It was argued from the side of the State that because the incident took place inside the house and no independent witness was there in the-house, hence none was examined. If the incident took place in the lane as shown in the site plan, it is to be seen whether the witnesses were present there or not. PW-2 Katar Singh has stated that at the time of incident outside the Gher, number of ladies and gents were present. It is then difficult to accept the contention that independent witnesses were not present. If independent witnesses have not been examined, an inference can be drawn that they were not ready and willing to support the prosecution story. 24. The plea of self-defence might not have been established by the defence to the hilt, but in view of what was been discussed above, it is certainly a case where the appellants can be granted benefit of reasonable doubt. The prosecution has to establish that the incident must have taken place in the way suggested by it and not that it might have so taken place. 25. In view of the above infirmities and improbabilities it is not safe to place reliance upon the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 26. The prosecution has to establish that the incident must have taken place in the way suggested by it and not that it might have so taken place. 25. In view of the above infirmities and improbabilities it is not safe to place reliance upon the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 26. The plea of self-defence might not have been successfully established, but it cannot be said that the cross-version is altogether imaginary. The injuries of the appellants could not be manufactured. In a bonafide way, the report of the cross-version was lodged. The report of the cross case was prior in time than the report of this case. The defence version, in my opinion, is capable of creating reasonable suspicion in the prosecution story and the benefit of this suspicion must go in favour of the appellants. The statement of defence witness Devi Singh is also capable of creating suspicion in the prosecution story. Thus for the reasons given above, I am of the view that in any case the prosecution has failed in establishing beyond doubt the charges against the appellants. Consequently they are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Consequently the appeal succeeds. 27. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal allowed. .