B. K. SHARMA, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 14-11-1980 passed by Sri V. S. Kulshrestha, the then IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh, in Sessions Trial No. 363 of 1978 convicting the appellants under Section 324/34, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 750/-each and under Section 323/34, IPC to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default nine months R. I. under Section 324/34, IPC and six months R. I. under Section 323/34, IPC and both the sentences making to run concurrently. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the accused-appellants and learned Addl. Government Advocate and have also gone through the record. This appeal ought to be allowed. 3. Admittedly, an incident took place on 6-4-77 at 12 Noon regarding mendh in village Dhansari Ka Nala, police station Barla, district Aligarh. The prosecution FIR was lodged at the police station the same day at 3. 10 p. m. by Ram Swaroop (P. W. 2) against the present accused- appel lants Reoti, Megh Singh, Rajbir and Totaram, father of Reoti accused-appel lant, under Section 324, IPC. 4. From the side of the prosecution, there were three injured, namely Ram Swaroop, Ganga Dean and Nirmal. Their injury reports are on record. Ram Swaroop had received a punctured wound on right side of fore-head and another punctured wound on left side of forehead and a contusion on back of right hand at the base of right index finer. Nirampal prosecution injured had received con tusions on his left forearm and right upper arm, a lacerated wound on back of right middle finger and an incised wound on his left index finger, as also an abrasion on his left temple. The third injured from the prosecution side, Gangadevi, w/o Ram Swaroop, had received dislocation of two right lateral (upper) incisor teeth and a contusion on right shoulder. 5. All the three prosecution injured were medically examined by the same doc tor promptly after the lodging of the FIR. 6. There was a cross-case and a cross-version. The cross FIR about this occur rence was lodged by Reoti accused-appel lant. The defence FIR was lodged giving the same time and place of occurrence against Ram Swaroop (informant and prosecution injured), Sripal, Nirampal (both prosecution injured) and Niltva under Section 324, IPC on the same day of 3. 6. There was a cross-case and a cross-version. The cross FIR about this occur rence was lodged by Reoti accused-appel lant. The defence FIR was lodged giving the same time and place of occurrence against Ram Swaroop (informant and prosecution injured), Sripal, Nirampal (both prosecution injured) and Niltva under Section 324, IPC on the same day of 3. 30 p. m. , i. e. following closely on the heeds of the prosecution FIR. 7. There were as many as five injured from the side of the accused in the present case, who were thus prosecution injured in the cross-case. Out of the present appel lants Reoti was himself injured having received a punctured wound on his right temporal hone, a lacerated wound on the right side of his fore- head, a lacerated wound on his back of head, a contusion on the back of right elbow and an abrasion on back of his left. hand. Megh Singh accused-appellant was also injured in the occur rence. He had received a lacerated wound on the right side of his head and an abrasion on his right side of his chest. Rajvir accused-appellant was not an in jured in the occurrence. Apart from Reoti and Mcgh Singh accused-appellants, there were three other injured in the occurrence in the accused-side, Smt Harpiari, wife of Reoti, present accused-appellant, Smt. Naraini and Smt. Kalawati. Smt. Kaiawati had received one lacerated wound on her back of head and a contusion on her left forearm in the middle. Smt. Harpian received one lacerated wound on her forehead and a contusion an her right index finger. Smt Narain received a punc tured wound on top of her head, a lacerated wound on the top of her head and a contusion on her right shoulder. She was semi- conscious at the time of her medical examination. 8. It has come in evidence that the defence injured as also prosecution in jured, both were sent with Chitthi Majroobi to the hospital and were examined by the same doctor. 9. There is no controversy that the injuries of all the injured from the prosecution side and the injuries of all the injured from the defence side had received the injuries at the time of the occurrence. 9. There is no controversy that the injuries of all the injured from the prosecution side and the injuries of all the injured from the defence side had received the injuries at the time of the occurrence. Under these circumstances an explanation was certainly due from the prosecution side abut the injuries of the five defence injured, even though injuries of all of them were simple in nature. It may also be men tioned that the injuries of the prosecution injured were also simple in nature. The medical evidence shows that the injures of prosecution injured were caused by blunt and sharp edged weapons. There were even punctured wounds found. From the side of defence also, the wounds found on the bodies of the injured were both caused by blunt weapon and also by sharp pointed weapon. 10. In the prosecution FIR there is a mention that the injuries on the prosecu tion side were caused by blade of phawras and by lathis. There is, however, absolutely no mention of any injury received on the side of defencee. There was also no men tion of the use of any weapon by me prosecution side in self- defence of person or properly. 11. In the cross FIR there was allega tion that the injuries were inflicted by Lathi and Phawaras, but there was no men tion that any one on the side of assailants had received any injury in the occurrence and there was no allegation that Reoti, the lodger of the cross FIR the present ac cused-appellant No. 3 or any one else had used any weapon against anyone. 12. On the basis of the cross FIR a cross-case was registered and it appears that a charge sheet was submitted and a trial was made. Tota Ram the 4th accused to the present case in the FIR from the side of the prosecution, had beer, given the benefit of doubt by the that Court. It ap pears that the cross- case has ended in ac quittal. 13. At the trial of the present case, ocular testimony has been given by Ram Swaroop (P. W. 2), who is the informant and also injured in the occurrence, Nirampal (P. W. 3), who was also an injured in the occurrence. It ap pears that the cross- case has ended in ac quittal. 13. At the trial of the present case, ocular testimony has been given by Ram Swaroop (P. W. 2), who is the informant and also injured in the occurrence, Nirampal (P. W. 3), who was also an injured in the occurrence. Ram Swaroop (P. W. 2) had no-where stated in his examination-in-chief that he or his companions used any weapon in the exercise of right of private defence of person or property. He also no-where stated in his examination-in-chief that any of the accused-persons or any one of the defence side received any injures in the occurrence. In his cross-ex amination he categorically stated that he did not see any injury on the body of any of the accused persons. He further stated that he did not see any injury on the body of Smt. Harpiari, Smt. Naraini or Smt. Kalawati. He further categorically stated that he or his sons did not give any beating to the accused persons. The defence ver sion was put to him that the prosecution side was demolishing the old mendh of agricultural land and when Reoti objected, he assaulted Reoti with phawras and his son assaulted Reoti with Lathis. He denied the suggestion. He also denied that Megh Singh, Smt. Kalawati, Smt. Naraini and Smt. Harpiari had come to save Reoti and the prosecution side had beaten them with lathis and phawras. There was a defence suggestion made to this witness that Smt. Harpiari used Lathi in defence of the ac cused persons and for defending herself and it was this which resulted injuries on the prosecution side. He denied this sug gestion. 14. Niram Pal (P. W. 3) also testified to the occurrence but did not state anywhere in his examination-in- chief that he or anyone else from the side of prosecution used weapons in self-defence much less that the accused side received injury in the exercise of the same. In cross-examination he categorically stated that he did not cause any injury on the body of any accused person, that none from the side of prosecu tion had assaulted any accused person and even claimed that they (prosecution side) did not have any weapon with them. Asked further he stated that Smt. Kalawati and Smt. Naraini were using Lathis which struck him. Asked further he stated that Smt. Kalawati and Smt. Naraini were using Lathis which struck him. He, further, stated that they (the prosecution side) did not beat Smt. Kalawati, Smt. Naraini or Smt. Harpiari. He further stated that his father inflicted injuries by Kalawati Naraini. He also stated that women were using Lathies in their defence. The reply was vague. How ever when the defence version was sug gested to him, he made denial of the same. 15. So, there is a basic flaw in the prosecution evidence because neither in the prosecution FIR, nor in the ocular testimony given at the trial by the aforesaid witnesses, there was any explanation of the injuries of the defence side. In fact, there was a categorical denial that the accused-appellants had received any injury in the occurrence. It is thus clear that the prosecution version of the occurrence is not truthful. There may be cases where despite non-explanation of the injuries of the defence side the prosecution version may be accepted, but the present is ob viously not such a case. 16. The learned Sessions Judge has himself found on scrutiny of the prosecu tion evidence that the prosecution wit nesses have tried to change the place of occurrence towards the east of the Nale while the demarcated Mendh had existed towards west of the Nala. He was of the view that due to confusion in the Marpeet these witnesses had stated the different place of Marpeet, but admittedly the Mar peet had taken place where the demar cated Mendh was being demolished by the accused-persons. The shifting of place of occurrence by the ocular witnesses always throws a doubt on the prosecution version. So this circumstance is against the prosecution case and cannot be over looked. 17. The defence has examined Mahipal Singh as D. W. 1. He supported the defence version and claimed that Ram Swaroop information of the prosecution case was demolishing the Mendh accom panied with Sripal, Nirampal and Netrapal and when Reoti forbade them Ram Swaroop etc. assaulted Reoti with Lathies and phawras and to save him his brother Megh Singh, Smt. Naraini, Smt. Harpiari and Smt. Kalawati came there who were also beaten by these persons and that Har piari used Lathi in self- defence which struck Ram Swaroop and others. assaulted Reoti with Lathies and phawras and to save him his brother Megh Singh, Smt. Naraini, Smt. Harpiari and Smt. Kalawati came there who were also beaten by these persons and that Har piari used Lathi in self- defence which struck Ram Swaroop and others. His tes timony cannot be accepted because he ad mitted that Ram Swaroop, Nirampal and Ganga Devi of the prosecution side received injuries in the occurrence but claimed that these injuries were caused by Lathi of Smt. Harpiari and that nobody inflicted injuries (to them) by sharp or pointed weapons. The prosecution sug gestion to this witness was that he was not present at the spot. The testimony of this witness does not explain the sharp weapons injuries found on the body of Nirampal prosecution injured and punc tured wounds found on the body of Ram Swaroop informant and prosecution in jured. It is thus obvious that there was a dispute about the Mendh but it is not clear to the court as to which side was demolish ing the Mendh, as a result of which the occurrence started. From the non-ex planation by the prosecution side of the injuries of the defence side it is clear that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and at any rate the prosecution witnesses are lying on an important aspect of the occurrence. The defence version also is obviously untrue. The defence in their cross FIR did not explain the injuries of the prosecution in jured and the explanation given by the defence at the trial is also not acceptable as noted above. 18. Under these circumstances the prosecution version as well as the defence version both are liable to be rejected and it is difficult to sustain the conviction made and sentence of the accused-appellants awarded by the trial court. 19. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sen tence of the accused- appellants Reoti, Megh Singh and Rajvir are set aside. They are acquitted of the same. They are on bail. They need not surrender to it. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are dis charged. 20. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Sessions Judge con cerned for information and compliance. The compliance report shall be submitted by the learned Sessions Judge concerned to this Court within a month from today. Order accordingly. They need not surrender to it. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are dis charged. 20. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Sessions Judge con cerned for information and compliance. The compliance report shall be submitted by the learned Sessions Judge concerned to this Court within a month from today. Order accordingly. .