JUDGEMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J. :---This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under section 378(1) Cr.P.C. against the Judgment and order dated 30-9-1983, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Sessions Case No. 28 of 1983, acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 341, 326 r/w 149 I.P.C. (on three counts) in the alternative under section 326 r/w 34 I.P.C., 302 r/w 149 (on two counts) and in the alternative under section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. 2.Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under :- There was enmity between the informant Rajaram P.W. 5 on the one hand and the respondents on the other. It is said that about two months prior to the incident, paddy of the respondents was eaten by some cattle and respondents suspected that the said cattle belonged to the people of the complainant's party. It is alleged that on this, a quarrel had taken place between the parties. It is said that on 16-12-1982, sometimes between 3 to 4 p.m. Kishen Ragho Rahate, P.W. 10 and his son Laxman P.W. 7 were passing in a bullock cart, through a dry passage, in Ramaji river, situated within the limits of Kondaye in District Ratnagiri. At that time, the respondents Shriram, Gangaram, Sudam, Suvarna and Pushpa came there. As Kishen and Laxman crossed the river, Shriram and Sudam pulled them out from the cart. Sudam dealt a stick blow on Kishen's head. His son Laxman went running towards the house. It is said that Anant Ragho Rahate one of the deceased persons, came there and Sudam inflicted a scythe and a stick blow on his head. He fell down as a consequence thereof. Thereafter, Sudam, Suvarna and Pushpa pushed him into the river, and while he was lying in it, they pelted stones on him. In the mean time, Gangaram Rahate and Venubai P.W. 6 reached there. The latter pulled out Anant from the river. Shriram, Sudam, Suvarna and Pushpa started beating Gangaram Rahate. Shriram assaulted him with a stick; Suvarna and Pushpa inflicted fist blows on him. One Yeshwant Kadam, P.W. 9 and Rajaram P.W. 5 also reached there, Shriram assaulted both of them with sticks. It is said that Dhondu Bhiku Rawoot and Saraswati P.W. 8 (wife of Yeshwant Kadam, P.W. 9) also reached there, Thereafter, the respondents are said to have run away. One Yeshwant Kadam, P.W. 9 and Rajaram P.W. 5 also reached there, Shriram assaulted both of them with sticks. It is said that Dhondu Bhiku Rawoot and Saraswati P.W. 8 (wife of Yeshwant Kadam, P.W. 9) also reached there, Thereafter, the respondents are said to have run away. 3.After Kisan and others had been belaboured and the respondents had run away, the injured persons were taken in a bullock cart; first to Phansu where Police Patil Dhondu Tatkari was contacted and thereafter, to Dapoli Cottage Hospital. At the said hospital, they were examined by Dr. Ashok Ponkshe, P.W. 2. On the person of Gangaram, Rahate, the doctor found one contused lacerated wound 2" x 1/4" x skin deep on the scalp. On the person of Anant Ragho Rahate the doctor found a contused lacerated wound 1.6" x 1/2" x skin deep over left parietal region. On the person of Balkrishna Ragho Rahate, the doctor found one contused lacerated wound over the right temporal region of the dimensions of 3" x 1/2" x skin deep and four abrasions. (Injury No. 2 has been described as two abrasions). On the person of Rajaram Sahadev Ghoderao the doctor found fracture of right clavicle shaft middle 1/3rd aspect. On the person of Yeshwant Bapu Kadam, the doctor found a contused lacerated wound of the dimensions of 2½" x 1/2" x skin deep, on left temporal region and one contusion on right elbow. He also stated that Yeshwant complained of pain in left wrist at the time of medical examination. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries of the said persons, were attributable to a hard blunt object. 4.As the condition of Gangaram Rahate was precarious, Dr. Ponkshe referred him for medical treatment to Bombay. The evidence is that at Bombay, he was treated in Sion Hospital. The evidence further is that both he and Anant Rahate subsequently succumbed to their injuries. The post mortem examination of Anant Rahate was conducted on 17-12-1982 at about 9.30 a.m. by Dr. Ponkshe, P.W. 2 who found on his person, one contused lacerated wound and three abrasions (injury No. 2 is described as two abrasions). On internal examination, he found linear fissure fracture of left parietal bone, and over vault of skull extending from right temporal to left temporal bone. Ponkshe, P.W. 2 who found on his person, one contused lacerated wound and three abrasions (injury No. 2 is described as two abrasions). On internal examination, he found linear fissure fracture of left parietal bone, and over vault of skull extending from right temporal to left temporal bone. He opined that death was due to shock on account of craino-cerebral injuries with fracture of skull bones. The post mortem examination of Gangaram Rahate was conducted by Dr. Hemchandra Agharkar, P.W. 1. Dr. Agharkar did not find any external marks of injury. On internal examination, he however found fracture of parietal region, of skull and some other internal damage. In his opinion, the deceased died on account of fracture of skull. 5.Going backwards, the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged on the date of the incident itself, at 7.45 p.m., at Police Station Dapoli. It was recorded at Dapoli Hospital on the basis of the information given by Rajaram P.W. 5. 6.A counter F.I.R. with respect to the same incident was lodged by the respondent Sudam also on the date of the incident at 10 p.m. at Police Station Dapoli. On the basis of the said F.I.R., an offence under section 323 and 325 I.P.C. was registered against Rajaram, Kisan and one Dhondu Raut, P.W. 11. 7.On the side of the defence, seven persons namely Suvarna, Nanda,, Shriram, Pushpa, Gangaram, Rukmini and Sudam sustained injuries. The injuries of the said persons were medically examined from 8 p.m. onwards. On the person of Suvarna, the doctor found no external injuries but, however noted that she complained of pain in right temporal region of scalp. On the person of Nanda, the doctor found one contused lacerated wound, 2" x 1/2" x skin deep on occipital region of scalp and one abrasion. On the person of Shriram, the doctor found one contused lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" x skin deep over left temporal region of scalp and suspected fracture of left radius upper 1/3rd aspect. He also found tenderness overcalf muscle. On seeing the x-ray report, he stated that he found a crack fracture of left radius upper 1/3rd aspect. On the person of Pushpa, the doctor found a contused lacerated wound over third finger dorsal aspect 2 inches x half inch x bone deep with suspected fracture. He also found tenderness overcalf muscle. On seeing the x-ray report, he stated that he found a crack fracture of left radius upper 1/3rd aspect. On the person of Pushpa, the doctor found a contused lacerated wound over third finger dorsal aspect 2 inches x half inch x bone deep with suspected fracture. On the person of Gangaram Ghoderao, the doctor found one lacerated wound over 1/2" x 1/4" over right dorsal of hand and one more lacerated wound on the right second interphalyagial space. He advised x-ray and on seeing the x-ray report, he stated that the said injury revealed fracture of the second and 5th meta-carpal bones. He also noted that Gangaram complained of pain in calf muscle on both sides and tenderness was present. On the person of Rukmini the doctor found two contused lacerated wounds, suspected fracture on left tibia, weal marks over right arm in an area of 1" and noted in the injury report that he complained of pain. One of the lacerated wounds sustained by Rukmini was of the dimensions of 1½" x 1/2" x skin deep and was situated on scalp. On the person of Sudam, the doctor did not find any external injury but, noted that he complained of pain in right arm. 8.The investigation was conducted by H.C.V.S. Kale, P.W. 14 and P.S.I. S.S. Khendekar, P.W. 13 in the usual manner. After its completion, the respondents were charge-sheeted. From a perusal of the impugned Judgment, it appears that the case emanating from the counter report lodged by respondent-Sudam was also charge sheeted. The evidence is that both the cases were tried together. 9.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner. In the trial Court, the respondents were charged for offences mentioned in para 1` of this Judgment. To the said charges, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the trial, in all, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses. Six out of them, namely Rajaram. Venubai, Laxman, Saraswati, Yeshwant and Kishan, P.Ws. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 respectively were examined as eyewitnesses. In defence, no witness was examined. To the said charges, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the trial, in all, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses. Six out of them, namely Rajaram. Venubai, Laxman, Saraswati, Yeshwant and Kishan, P.Ws. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 respectively were examined as eyewitnesses. In defence, no witness was examined. After recording the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the statements of the respondents under section 313 Cr.P.C.; and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge passed the impugned Judgment which has been assailed by the appellant (State of Maharashtra) by means of the present appeal. 10.We have heard Mr. I.S. Thakur, Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant State of Maharashtra and Mr. G.R.Rage, for the respondents, at some length. We have also perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses; the material Exhibits tendered by prosecution; and the impugned Judgment. We have no hesitation in concluding that the impugned Judgment of acquittal is perfectly sound and correct. As a necessary corollary this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11.The crucial question which calls for determination in this appeal is whether the incident has taken place in the manner deposed to by the eye-witnesses or in that as suggested during the cross-examination by the defence to P.W. 10 Kisan. We would, however like to make it clear that in a criminal case, the prosecution either swims or sinks on the strength or the weaknesses of its own case and its case is not bolstered by the frailities of the defence. The proposition, in our Judgment, is far too well-settled to require amplification by judicial pronouncements but, those of us who owe a fanatical allegiance to authorities, would be well-advised to refer to the observations contained in para 10 of the decision of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1974, Supreme Court page 778 (Sawal Das, appellant v. State of Bihar, respondent)1, which read thus:- "Neither an application of section 103 nor of 106 of the Evidence Act could, however, absolve the prosecution from the duty of discharging its general or primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, well sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, that the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof may lie upon the accused." Bearing in mind, this legal position as well as the legal proposition that the burden on the defence is not as onerous as that on the prosecution we have to examine the impugned Judgment. It is a trite that whereas the obligation on the prosecution is to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt that on the defence both in terms of section 105 and 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, is to show by a preponderance off probabilities that its case may be true. These two principles have to be borne in mind in the background of the fact that we are evaluating then impugned Judgment in an appeal against acquittal, wherein the settled law is that if the view of acquittal was a possible view, the Appellate Court does not interfere. The Apex Court times out of number, has even gone to the extent of saying that the circumstance that left to itself, the Appellate Court would have taken a different view of the evidence from that taken by the trial Court, would be no ground to interfere in such an appeal. It is bearing in mind these legal principles that we have to examine the impugned judgment. 12.The Achilles heel in the prosecution case is that the same does not furnish an iota of explanation with respect to the injuries of seven persons on the side of defence. In para seven of our Judgment, we have set out those injuries extensively. Their perusal shows three things :- a) Some of the injuries suffered were on vital parts like head ; b) Some of the injuries were grievous in nature ; c) The recipients of those injuries and those who rushed to their rescue by virtue of the provisions contained in Clauses Firstly and Secondly of section 100 I.P.C., read with section 97 I.P.C. had the right of private defence of person to cause two deaths and injure three persons on the side of the prosecution. (Clause Firstly of section 100 provides that if there is an apprehension of death, the right of private defence of person would extend to causing death and Secondly provides that the right would extend to such an extent even if there is apprehension of grievous hurt. Here grievous hurt was actually caused). 12A.It would also be pertinent to mention that the injuries sustained on the side of defence, are more in number, than those suffered on the side of prosecution and this circumstance also shows that aggression was resorted to by the prosecution side. It is common experience that those who are victims of aggression cause less injuries than what they receive; obviously because the other side has come planned to launch assault and they are not prepared from before hand to combat it. 12B.The Supreme Court in the oft-quoted decision reported in A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court, page 2263 (Lakshmi Singh and others etc. Appellants v. State of Bihar. respondent)2, in para 11 has observed that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused, on the part of the prosecution, may lead to the following three inferences :- "1) That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version ; 2) That the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are living on a most material point and therefore, their evidence is unreliable. 3) That in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case." We are in respectful agreement with the ratio culled out by Their Lordships in the said case. 13.In our Judgment, all the three inferences laid down in A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court page 2263 supra should be drawn by us in this case. The defence version of the incident which explains the injuries on the side of the prosecution has been put during the cross-examination to Kishen, P.W. 10 in para 5. In short, it is that on the date and time of the incident, Laxman and Rajaram, P.Ws. 7 and 5 respectively had gone in a bullock-cart and reached the place where the respondents Pushpa and Suvarna were washing clothes. In short, it is that on the date and time of the incident, Laxman and Rajaram, P.Ws. 7 and 5 respectively had gone in a bullock-cart and reached the place where the respondents Pushpa and Suvarna were washing clothes. Vijay, the brother of Sudam and Shriram was also there and was pulling threads of jute along with them. It is further to the effect that they used obscene language in relation to Suvarna and Pushpa and when these ladies protested, they started assaulting them. On hearing their shrieks, the respondents-Shriram and Sudam came there and a quarrel ensued between the parties. Laxman ran towards the wadi. At that time, Anant Rahate and Gangaram Rahate, (the deceased persons), Dhondu Rahate and Yeshwant Kadam came with sticks in their hands. Thereafter, all of them started beating Shriram and Sudam. Shriram snatched the stick from Kishen's hand in order to protect himself and his people. It is true that parts of the said suggestion have been denied by Kisan but his denial, we are not prepared to accept because being an accused in the cross case, where he is branded as an aggressor, he is bound to do make. Further, if he could be unscrupulous enough to maintain an ominous silence in respect of injuries on the side of defence, he would certainly have had no compunction in denying the said suggestion. Hence, we pay no heed to his denial. 14.Mr. Thakur, Additional Public Prosecutor strenuously urged that the defence version of the incident does not in so many words explain the injuries of all the injured on the side of the prosecution. We do not agree with this submission for the defence is only required to, show by a preponderance of probabilities that its case may be true and not prove it beyond all reasonable doubt, as the prosecution is obliged to do. The defence in our view, has discharged its burden. 14A. However, even if it is assumed that Mr. Thakur's contention is correct, it would still make no difference for the position at the worst, would be that both prosecution and defence are coming with untrue versions and each side is suppressing its aggression. In such a situation, the gainer is not the prosecution. As said earlier, the prosecution has to swim or sink, depending on the merits or demerits of its own case. In such a situation, the gainer is not the prosecution. As said earlier, the prosecution has to swim or sink, depending on the merits or demerits of its own case. We are fortified in our view, by the observations made in para 12 of the decision reported in A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court page 1822 (Jamuna Chaudhary and others..Appellants. v. State of Bihar, Respondent)3, which read thus:- " Where neither the prosecution nor the defence come out with the whole and unvarnished truth, to enable the Court to Judge where the rights and wrongs of the set of incidents lay or how one or more incidents took place in which so many persons, including the deceased and one accused person, were injured, courts can only try to guess or conjecture to decipher the truth if possible. This may be done, within limits to determine whether any reasonable doubt emerges on any point under consideration from proved facts and circumstances of the case." The same proposition has been culled out by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the oft-quoted case of (Subrati and others. Appellants v. State of U.P. Respondent)4, 1959 Allahabad Law Journal. pg. 423. The relevant observations are to the following effect :- "It is well-settled principle of criminal law that an accused can be convicted only when on the evidence produced the Court is in a position to come to a definite conclusion beyond the possibility of reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence with which he stood charged. No conviction can be based on mere possibilities. Nor is it permissible for the Court to speculate as to what had really happened. If both the parties come to Court with untrue facts and conceal the real truth they have themselves to blame and they cannot expect the Court to arrive at any definite conclusion on the unreliable evidence produced, either for or against either of the parties. In such a case the Court will certainly attempt to separate the grain from the chaff but only if it is possible to do so. In certain circumstances, it may be found to be an impossible task. That is particularly so when the evidence of both the parties is thoroughly unreliable and cannot be accepted even in part with safety. In such a case the Court will certainly attempt to separate the grain from the chaff but only if it is possible to do so. In certain circumstances, it may be found to be an impossible task. That is particularly so when the evidence of both the parties is thoroughly unreliable and cannot be accepted even in part with safety. In such a case, it is not open to the Court to make out a third case which is different from the case set up by both the parties. In such a case the Court can only say that the matter is doubtful in the extreme and it is not possible to arrive at any conclusion one way or the other. The result of such a finding may be that all the persons who stand as accused in the case may have to be given the benefit of doubt. But that cannot be helped. The defective investigation and the conduct of the parties themselves are really responsible for that regrettable result. In such a case, there can be no question of recording any conviction." 15.For the aforesaid reasons, we are implicitly satisfied that the impugned Judgment of acquittal cannot be faulted with. In our view, not only the view of acquittal was a possible view but it was a wholly plausible view. The other view would have been a manifestly perverse view. 16.For the said reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same. We confirm the impugned Judgment and maintain the acquittal of the respondents on all the counts. The respondents are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and sureties discharged. Before parting with this Judgment, we would like to place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned Counsel for the parties indisposal of this appeal. In case an application for a certified copy of this Judgment is made, the same shall be issued on an expedited basis. Appeal dismissed. *****