Honble GODARA, J. – This appeal by leave has been preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.11.78 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 7/78 thereby acquitting the accused-respondents of the offences charged with. (2). Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the prosecution of the accused-res- pondents, of whom Hindu Ram died during the pendency of this appeal resulting in abatement of his appeal, are as follows: (3). P.W. 8 Labu Ram and P.W. 7 Ramu Ram are real brothers. P.W. 2 Shanker Ram is son of P.W. 7 Ramu Ram. P.W. 1 Teja Ram is son of Peera Ram who is brother of Ramu Ram and Labu Ram. P.W. 3 Sukha Ram and P.W. 4 Amra Ram are sons of Labu Ram. They are residing in Jakharon-ki-Dhani of Village Kosana. The accused are also residents of the same Dhani and village. Both the parties are living in the same locality. The complainant party as well as the accused-party were having strained relationship due to straying of each others animals in the standing crops of opposite party as well as due to some quarrels previously having taken place between children of the two sides. On 7.9.77 at about 9 P.M., as alleged by the prosecution, all the accused-persons, armed themselves with `kassis (peak-axes), collected out-side the residence of P.W. 8 Labu Ram and while sitting on the `Chabutra situated out-side their house, they kept waiting for the arrival of P.W. 8 Labu Ram, P.W. 1 Teja Ram and P.W. 2 Shankar Ram from their well. Meanwhile, Labu Ram accompanied by Teja Ram and Shankar Ram arrived from his well and while they were about to enter main entrance gate of their house, all the accused-persons conjointly started assaulting them. Shiv Ram accused gave blow of `kassi on the head of Labu Ram resulting in fracturing frontal bone causing a grievous hurt. Other accused-persons also gave beatings to Labu Ram resulting in multiple injuries. Gena Ram accused inflicted injuries on Teja Ram. Ramji Ram gave a blow of `kassi on the head of Shankar Ram. All the three injured persons were subjected to beatings and infliction of injuries by the accused-persons. PW 7 Ramu Ram came running out of his house to intervene and he was also assaulted by Hindu Ram resulting in injuries on his back and left hand. Ramji Ram gave a blow of `kassi on the head of Shankar Ram. All the three injured persons were subjected to beatings and infliction of injuries by the accused-persons. PW 7 Ramu Ram came running out of his house to intervene and he was also assaulted by Hindu Ram resulting in injuries on his back and left hand. P.W. 3 Sukha Ram who was hardly aged 11 or 12 years, also came running to the scene of occurrence and he was also hurt by the accused-persons. After assaulting the said persons, all the accused-persons retired to their adjoining houses. P.W. 10 Babu Lal happened to reach the place of occurrence on his tractor. He transported all the injured persons to the Police Station, Pipar City. P.W.7 Ramu Ram reported the incident verbally to P.W. 9 Ummaid Singh, Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, who reduced it to writing in Ex.P. 16, as a result of which, an F.I.R. under Sections 147, 148 and 307/149, I.P.C. was registered and investigation was taken up by Ummaid Singh. All the injured persons were referred to the Primary Health Center, Pipar City whereat Labu Ram, Shankar Ram, Teja Ram, Ramu Ram, Sukha Ram and Amra Ram were medically examined by P.W. 5 Dr. N.R. Bhandari. On examination of Labu Ram, as many as 6 injuries were found on his person while rest of the injured were caused by blunt weapon and were of simple nature. Injury No. 1 which was an incised wound with fracture of frontal bone of the scalp, was found to be grievous which was also caused by a sharp weapon. Shankar Ram had an injury on middle and upper part of the forehead caused by sharp weapon while rest of injuries caused on the person of Shankar Ram as well as aforesaid all the other five injured persons were found to be of simple nature besides having been caused by blunt weapons. (14). P.W. 9 Ummaid Singh proceeded to the scene of occurrence and he prepared Ex. P. 22 site-memo besides the memorandum of site Ex. P. 23. He also arrested the accused-persons and, pursuant to informations given by the accused-persons, the alleged weapons of offences, being `kassis were also seized. (14). P.W. 9 Ummaid Singh proceeded to the scene of occurrence and he prepared Ex. P. 22 site-memo besides the memorandum of site Ex. P. 23. He also arrested the accused-persons and, pursuant to informations given by the accused-persons, the alleged weapons of offences, being `kassis were also seized. Since only one `kassi was forwarded for chemical examination which bore blood but the same could not be confirmed to be stained with human blood and, in absence of other evidence, these recoveries were found to be of no consequence. After comp- letion of investigation, the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, Pipar City, filed a charge-sheet under Sections 147,148, 324, 325, 326 and 307 read with Section 149, I.P.C. in the court of the then Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bilara, who, in turn, committed the case against all the accused-persons to the court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur made over this case to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, who charged the accused- respondents-Shiv Ram for commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 307, 326 and 323, I.P.C. while Ramji Ram was charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 324, 307/149, 326/149 and 323, I.P.C. Rest of the accused- persons were charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 307/ 149, 326/149 and 323, I.P.C. to which all of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. (5) The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case. P.Ws. Labu Ram, Shankar Ram, Teja Ram, Ramu Ram, Amara Ram and Sukha Ram are the injured persons whereas P.W. 10 Babu Lal is alleged to have reached the scene of occurrence just at the fag end of incident who took all the injured persons in his tractor to the Police Station, Pipar City. P.W. 5 Dr. Bhandari is the Medical Officer who had examined injuries of the said injuries prosecution witnesses and so also the accused-persons. P.W. 9 Ummaid Singh is the Investigating Officer. P.W. 6 Ilahi Bux was `Motbir of the seizure memo and he is a formal witness. (6). P.W. 5 Dr. Bhandari is the Medical Officer who had examined injuries of the said injuries prosecution witnesses and so also the accused-persons. P.W. 9 Ummaid Singh is the Investigating Officer. P.W. 6 Ilahi Bux was `Motbir of the seizure memo and he is a formal witness. (6). The accused-persons were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Shiv Ram accused stated that he was returning home on his cycle and that, in the dark, both Amara Ram and Kana Ram were hiding in the way who intercepted him and snatched his wrist-watch, pen and a sum of Rs. 200/-. He returned to his house and at the time of the alleged incident he was sitting on `chabutari situated in front of his house and then Amra Ram, Teja Ram, Ramu Ram, Shankar Ram etc. came there and they were subjected to an assault resulting in multiple injuries to, besides himself, Gena Ram, Munna Lal, Ramji Ram and Raja Ram. He also lodged a cross F.I.R. at the Police Station, Pipar City, as is also admitted by P.W. 9 Ummaid Singh, which also, after investigation, resulting in filing of a charge-sheet against the said persons in the court of the then Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bilara. Similarly, other accused- persons also maintained that the said accused-persons were assaulted by the complainant-party which was the aggressor party. They denied that they were aggressor and that they had caused any injury to any of the prosecution wit- nesses. They examined D.W. 1 Pukh Raj Bishnoi, who is uncle of P.W. 10 Babu Lal, who has stated that Babu Lal was staying at his house in the night of the alleged incident. D.W. 2 Bhanwar Singh, Head Constable, has stated that he had investigated F.I.R. No. 97/77. (7). After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Judge after thorough exami- nation, evaluation and marshalling of the prosecution evidence, held the statements of the prosecution witnesses, who are also alleged to have been injured in the alleged incident, to be self-contradictory and unreliable besides theirs being related to each other and also being inimical to the accused-persons. (7). After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Judge after thorough exami- nation, evaluation and marshalling of the prosecution evidence, held the statements of the prosecution witnesses, who are also alleged to have been injured in the alleged incident, to be self-contradictory and unreliable besides theirs being related to each other and also being inimical to the accused-persons. It was further held that as many as 5 accused- persons were also subjected to an assault resulting in multiple injuries including a grievous injury to Raja Ram besides as many as 3 injuries caused by sharp weapon each to Ramji Ram, Shiv Ram and Poona Ram and the prosecution witnesses did not explain these multiple injuries received by the accused-persons in the same incident. Since both the parties were inimical to each other and all the prosecution witnesses being closely related and interested against the accused-persons, do not come forward with the true genesis and origin of the prosecution story and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge further held that the possibility could not be excluded that the accused-persons acted in exercise of their private right of defence of their persons while they were also subjected to an assault resulting in injuries to the prosecution witnesses. In the circumstances, it was further held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused-persons beyond reasonable manner of doubt and, consequently, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal was passed thereby acquitting the accused-persons. Being aggrieved, the State has preferred this appeal, as above. (8). I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant besides the learned counsel for the accused-respondents, went through the record of the trial court as well as the impugned judgment and considered the same carefully. (9). The learned Public prosecutor has contended that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its right perspective and instead, taking a superficial viw of the prosecution evidence on the face of as many as 6 injured witnesses besides medical evidence as well as the statement of P.W. 10 Babu Lal and the F.I.R., erroneously discarded the statements and evidence of the prosecution. In case there were any omissions or so called contradictions, the same were natural and immaterial and the prosecution evidence proved beyond reasonable manner of doubt that all the six prosecution witnesses were injured in the alleged incident and the accused-respondents were the assailants and, as a result, the learned trial Judge, on the face of overwhelming evidence, opted for the convenient way of acquitting the accused-persons from all the charges levelled against them. When the prosecution case was, from the very beginning, that the accused-persons formed an unlawful assembly and they all armed themselves with `kassis and were waiting for the arrival of Labu Ram etc. out-side his house and, on their arrival, they conjointly resorted to a murderous assault resulting in simple and grievous injuries to Labu Ram, Teja Ram, Shankar Ram besides Ramu Ram, Amara Ram and Sukha Ram who had successively come to the resque of Labu Ram etc., therefore, since all these persons were themselves injured in the incident and, therefore, their presence is proved beyond reasonable manner of doubt. They were immediately taken to the Police Station, Pipar City whereat P.W. 7 Ramu Ram lodged F.I.R. and they were also immediately subjected to medical examination by P.W. 5 Dr. Bhandari who has also supported the injuries alleged to have been inflicted by the accused-persons on the persons of all the injured prosecution witnesses. P.W. 10 Babu Lal, being not related to either side, being an independent witness, happened to come to the scene of occurrence, who found Labu Ram etc. lying injured and bleeding and he took all the injured persons in the tractor-trolley to the Police Station, Pipar City whereat Ramu Ram lodged F.I.R. with Ummaid Singh. In the circumstances, merely because all the injured persons are related to each other, that by itself, cannot be a ground for rejection of their evidence on the face of multiple injuries totalling 26 since including the one caused on the forehead resulting in fracture of the frontal bone of Labu Ram and also caused with a sharp weapon and, therefore, all the charges have been brought home by the prosecution on the basis of ocular, medical and circumstantial evidence which has been illegally and improperly discarded by the learned trial Judge. Therefore, when all the accused-persons were members of an unlawful assembly formed with the common object in committing murderous assault and hurts to the injured prosecu- tion witnesses and members of such assembly caused the injuries to the said prosecution witnesses, they are all liable for murderous assault as well as for causing grievous and simple injuries with the aid of Section 149, I.P.C. and, therefore, the impugned order of acquittal deserves to be set aside and hence the accused-respondents should be held guilty of commission of the offences charged with. (10). The learned counsel for the accused-respondents vehemently supported the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and submitted that this incident took place on 7.9.77. A period of about 19- 1/2years has elapsed since then. P.W. 5 Dr. Bhandari also medically examined the injuries of five accused-persons and he found 10th rib of Raja Ram accused fractured while as many as 3 accused-persons received injuries by sharp weapons and other injuries were caused by blunt weapons and all these injuries totalling 19 have gone unexplained by the prosecution witnesses. Admittedly, both the parties were inimical and were also living in the same vicinity. The alleged incident took place out side their houses. Since the prosecution witnesses have consistently denied causing injuries to the accused-persons and so they have lied in respect of the injuries found on the persons of five accused-persons and so their testimony, besides their being inimical to the accused-persons and being inter-related and being also interested as such against the accused-persons, cannot be held to be wholly reliable. Besides, as admitted by P.W. 9 Ummaid Singh, F.I.R. No. 98/77 was registered on the report of Shiv Ram accused which resulted in filing of a charge-sheet under Sections 147, 148, 325, 341, 447, 324 and 323 read with Section 149, I.P.C. in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bilara. Therefore, it is further submitted that when the evidence of interested, partisan and inter-related witnesses who are, admittedly, inimical to the accused-persons as well, is not wholly reliable and the accused-persons were also injured in the incident. Therefore, it is further submitted that when the evidence of interested, partisan and inter-related witnesses who are, admittedly, inimical to the accused-persons as well, is not wholly reliable and the accused-persons were also injured in the incident. Since the learned trial Judge does not appear to have committed any illegality or irregularity and, therefore, the view of the learned trial Judge about the prosecution evidence cannot be held to be erroneous leading to any perverse finding of acquittal and, even as a result of re-evaluation and apprecia- tion of evidence, another view is equally possible, the one which finds favour with the learned trial Judge resulting in acquittal of the accused-persons is fortified from the fact that all the accused-persons stand acquitted since 29.11.78 and, as a result, after lapse of about 18-1/2 years, there are no compelling reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. (11). The prosecution has relied on the testimony of P.W. 1 Teja Ram, P.W. 2 Shankar Ram, P.W. 3 Sukha Ram, P.W. 4 Amara Ram, P.W. 7 Ramu Ram and P.W. 8 Labu Ram who are alleged to be injured persons. (12). P.W. 8 Labu Ram stated that at about 9 P.M., followed by P.W. 1 Teja Ram and P.W. 2 Shankar Ram, he reached out-side his entrance gate and he was suddenly assaulted by the accused-persons. Shiv Ram accused inflicted blow of `kassi on his head as a result of which he fell down. He clearly stated that on receiving head injury and having fallen to the ground, he became unconscious. He further stated that he had received two or four more injuries but he could not see as to who had caused those injuries. He further stated that Ramu Ram, Shankar Ram and Teja Ram were also injured in the same incident. Labu Ram did not see any accused inflicting injuries on the person of any other injured witness and he has attributed his grievous injury to Shiv Ram alone and he also did not attribute his remaining five injuries to any other person. As regards his injury found on his forehead, which has been opined by P.W. 5 Dr. Bhandari to be grievous and having been caused by sharp weapon since it has resulted in fracturing the frontal bone, was admittedly, not x-rayed either at Pipar City or Jodhpur. As regards his injury found on his forehead, which has been opined by P.W. 5 Dr. Bhandari to be grievous and having been caused by sharp weapon since it has resulted in fracturing the frontal bone, was admittedly, not x-rayed either at Pipar City or Jodhpur. As a result, since clinically it should not have been possible for Dr. Bhandari to have given a definite opinion about the nature of the injuries received by P.W. 8 Labu Ram and, therefore, the learned trial Judge does not appear to have committed any error while holding that the alleged injury opined to have been of a grievous nature, could have been easily x-rayed either at Pipar or, since, as is also admitted by Dr. Bhandari, Labu Ram was referred to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur for further treatment, his injury could have been x-rayed at Jodhpur but it was never done. Besides, had head injury been of grievous nature resulting in fracturing the frontal bone, there should have been operation and treatment of the same but the concerned treating and operating Medical Officer if any, has also not been examined. The treatment record has also not been produced. As a result, when clinically no definite opinion can be given about the nature of the injury specially when, as a result, external injury, corresponding to internal injury including fracture of frontal bone is caused, the surer proof of evidence is in the form of x- ray findings or, in case of surgical operation, the evidence of operation carried out but no such evidence could be adduced by the prosecution. Dr. Bhandari examined injuries of as many as 6 prose- cution witnesses besides 5 accused persons as well but he did not advise any person for x-ray of his injury. As a result, since both the parties were inimically disposed against each other and, as a result, looking to the nature of the dispute and the evidence, the learned trial Judge, in the totality of facts and circumstances, does not appear to have erroneously held that the prosecution also failed to prove beyond reasonable manner of doubt, by way of non-production of x-ray findings as well as operational note etc., if any. (3). (3). P.W. 1 Teja Ram and P.W. 2 Shankar Ram while supporting P.W. 8 Labu Ram, stated that they were returning from their well and before they could enter their house, all the accused-persons assaulted them with `kassis. Teja Ram stated that Gena Ram accused inflicted injuries of `kassi on his right leg and left shoulder while Ramji Ram inflicted injuries of `kassi on the head of Shankar Ram. He did not attribute injuries of Sukha Ram, Amara Ram and Ramu Ram to any other person. Though, as stated by P.W. 5 Dr. Bhandari and also borne out of Ex. P. 2 Injury Report, as many as six simple injuries caused by a blunt weapon, being in the nature of bruises and abrasions were found on his person but not a single injury was found to have been caused by any sharp or cutting weapon. As a result, in case, as is the prosecution story, all the accused-persons had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder of Labu Ram or his associates and, at the same time, to cause grievous injuries and also armed themselves with `kassis, in case they are used as deadly weapons, the same could have been used by their cutting and sharp sides but no such injury was found on the person of Teja Ram, However, P.W. 2 Shankar Ram also received six injuries and only one simple injury was reported to have been caused on his forehead being of a simple nature whereas rest of the injuries were simple and caused by blunt weapons. There were no other blunt weapons except `kassis. Had all the accused- persons conjointly resorted to a murderous assault on the injured prosecution witnesses, there could not have been bruises and abrasions found on the persons of these persons and since out of 26 injuries, only two injuries found on the person of Labu Ram and Shankar Ram each being caused by sharp weapons, rest of the 24 injuries were caused by blunt weapons and all of them were simple and therefore, the prosecution story further becomes very doubtful whether all the accused-persons actually did arm themselves with such sharp and cutting weapons and they also conjointly assaulted the injured prosecution witnesses as is the prosecution story. (14). (14). None of the prosecution witnesses has stated that any of the accused persons had used the reverse side of the `kassis while inflicting injuries to any of the injured prosecution witnesses. (15). P.W. 2 Shankar Ram has attributed his injury to Ramji Ram and he further stated that, as a result of this injury, he fell to the ground. He did not allege other injuries to any other accused- persons. Thus, as is the case of P.W. 8 Labu Ram, five remaining injuries found on the person of Shankar Ram have also gone unexplained. P.W. 1 Teja Ram named Gena Ram and Ramji Ram as accused-persons while he did not state that Sukha Ram, Amara Ram and Ramu Ram were also injured in the same incident at the same time. P.W. 2 Shankar Ram also did not state about the injuries of the three injured persons. (16). P.W. 3 Sukha Ram, being a child witness, is the son of P.W. 8 Labu Ram and he has stated that, after hearing hue and cry, he came out of his house and found his father lying injured on the ground. He saw an injury on his forehead. He further stated that both Teja Ram as well as Shankar Ram were also lying hurt on the ground. He further stated that all the seven accused-persons were standing there, being armed with `kassis. He has clearly stated that none of the accused-persons inflicted any injury to the injured persons. However, he stated that the accused Poona Ram inflicted an injury on his left shoulder with `kassi. As a result, Sukha Ram was held not to be an eye-witness to the actual occurrence and this fin- ding of the learned trial Judge is not against the evidence on record specially in view of admission of Sukha Ram himself. Sukha Ram has also attributed his single injury to Poona Ram accused while as per Injury Report Ex. P. 6 as well as statement of P.W. 5 Dr. Bhandari, he had three abrasions on his person but Sukha Ram did not attribute rest of the two abrasions to any of the accused-persons. Thus, the evi- dence of P.W. 3 Sukha Ram does not run parallel to the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution. (17). P.W. 4 Amara Ram even did not depose that he was hurt by any accused-persons. However, Ex. Thus, the evi- dence of P.W. 3 Sukha Ram does not run parallel to the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution. (17). P.W. 4 Amara Ram even did not depose that he was hurt by any accused-persons. However, Ex. P. 5 Injury Report and statement of P.W. 5 Dr. Bhandari show that he had two lacerations on his person at the time of his medical examination but the ocular evidence of Amara Ram himself negatives infliction or existence of any such injuries in the incident. He has further stated that when he reached his house, he took P.W. 8 Labu Ram, who is his father lying injured and in an unconscious condition on a cot in his house. Teja Ram and Shankar Ram were also sitting by his side and they were also found to have been hurt. He further stated that all the accused-persons were standing there being armed with `kassis and were hurling abuses at the injured persons. He only stated that P.W. 10 Babu Lal narrated this incident and told him that accused-persons had assaulted at Labu Ram, Shankar Ram and Teja Ram. As a result, neither Sukha Ram nor Amara Ram could be held to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Similarly, Amara Ram also pleaded ignorance about the injuries received by Sukha Ram and Ramu Ram. (18). P.W. 7 Ramu Ram has stated that he was sitting in his house and all the accused-persons, armed with `kassis, came out-side his house and they started assaulting Labu Ram when he was about to enter the gate of his house. Shiv Ram and Poona Ram inflicted `kassis blows on Labu Ram. Hearing the cries, he went out-side his house on which Multana Ram accused inflicted blow of `kassi on his head behind the left ear while Hindu Ram inflicted a blow of `kassi on his left hand. He further stated that Gena Ram also gave a blow of `kassi on the head of Shankar Ram. Hearing the cries, he went out-side his house on which Multana Ram accused inflicted blow of `kassi on his head behind the left ear while Hindu Ram inflicted a blow of `kassi on his left hand. He further stated that Gena Ram also gave a blow of `kassi on the head of Shankar Ram. Since, as are the statements of Labu Ram, Shankar Ram and Teja Ram, Shiv Ram is alleged to have first of all inflicted first blow of `kassi on the head of Labu Ram as a result of which he fell down and, subsequently, rest of the injured prosecution witnesses are alleged to have been successively assaulted and hurt and, as a result, it is but natural that P.W. 7 Ramu Ram who, after hearing hue and cry, came out of his house, could not have seen either Shiv Ram or any body else while inflicting injuries on the person of Labu Ram. He has admitted that Labu Ram and Shankar Ram were lying on the ground and as soon as he came out of his house he was so assaulted and, as a result, he also could not be held to be an eye-witness to the whole incident as alleged by the prosecution. He did not state in his police statement that Gena Ram inflicted any injury on the person of Shankar Ram. He also sated that Ramji Ram did not inflict any injury to Shankar Ram though he had previously stated in his police statement that Ramji Ram also inflicted injury by `kassi to Shankar Ram. Similarly, he has presently attributed an injury caused on his head behind his left ear to Multana Ram accused, whereas he did not attribute such injury to Multana Ram in his previous police statement. (19). As a result of above discussion, there is no prosecution witness who could have seen all the accused-persons conjointly assaulting and inflicting injuries to the injured prosecution witnesses. P.W. 8 Labu Ram, P.W. 1 Teja Ram and P.W. 2 Shankar Ram are alleged to have arrived together from their well to their house. This is disputed whether the `chabutari whereat the accused- persons are alleged to have been sitting is situated out-side the house of Labu Ram. Ex.P. 22 site-plan does not support this version of the prosecution. P.W. 8 Labu Ram, P.W. 1 Teja Ram and P.W. 2 Shankar Ram are alleged to have arrived together from their well to their house. This is disputed whether the `chabutari whereat the accused- persons are alleged to have been sitting is situated out-side the house of Labu Ram. Ex.P. 22 site-plan does not support this version of the prosecution. Besides, from the evidence of both sides, it is borne out that the complainant party as well as accused-party were inimical to each other. P.W. 1 Teja Ram, P.W. 2 Shankar Ram, P.W. 7 Ramu Ram and P.W. 8 Labu Ram besides P.W. 3 Sukha Ram and P.W. 4 Amara Ram who are sons of Labu Ram are close relations and are inter-se close relations besides being interested against the accused-persons. Their statements are not consistent, straight-forward and wholly reliable. As is the version of the accused-persons and so also corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 5 Dr. Bhandari, who had examined injuries of the accused-persons Raja Ram, Gena Ram, Ramji Ram, Shiv Ram and Poona Ram vide Ex. D. 4A, Ex. D5A, Ex D. 6A, Ex.D.7A and Ex. D. 8A respectively and, as a result, he also found 3,3,4,7 and 2 injuries respectively on the persons of these accused-persons, totalling 19 injuries. Out of 19 injuries, one injury resulting in fracture of 10th rib of Raja Ram was found to be grievous. Besides, Ramji Ram, Shiv Ram and Poona Ram each received one incised wound on their scalps, being caused by sharp weapons. This evidence cannot be disputed. Not only this, P.W. 9 Ummaid Singh has clearly admitted lodging of E.x D. 9 cross F.I.R. by injured Shiv Ram on the basis of which a case was registered against Shankar Ram, Teja Ram, Ramu Ram, Amara Ram etc. resulting in Ex. D. 10 charge-sheet against these persons as well, as a result of which they also faced prosecution in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bilara. This could not be denied by the prosecution witnesses as well. On the face of this overwhelming evidence, all the prosecution witnesses have consistently denied infliction of injuries to these five accused-persons besides their existence as well. This could not be denied by the prosecution witnesses as well. On the face of this overwhelming evidence, all the prosecution witnesses have consistently denied infliction of injuries to these five accused-persons besides their existence as well. As a result, since all these prosecution witnesses are, being closely inter-related and besides being injured and being interested as such, also being, at the same time, disposed inimically against the accused-persons, have intentionally hidden multiple injuries of the accused-persons and have resorted to falsehoods and untruths in this respect. (20). There is no other unrelated, independent and reliable witness to support the prosecution story. However, P.W. 10 Babu Lal has been examined by the prosecution whose presence at the scene of occurrence is challenged by none else but D.W. 1 Pukh Raj who is none but real uncle of Babu Lal himself, stating that, at the time of occurrence, Babu Lal was present at his house. Babu Lal also stated that he was proceeding from Pipar City to the village Kosana driving his tractor and he saw that as soon as Labu Ram reached his house, Gena Ram and his associates assaulted Labu Ram. They were all armed with `kassis. He stated that he saw Shriram inflicting blow of `kassi on the head of Labu Ram which was never stated in his previous police statement Ex.D. 4. Besides, there is no accused of the name of Shriram Ram and instead he appears to have mistaken the identity of Shiv Ram accused in an unsuccessful attempt to toe the version of other prosecution witnesses. As also admitted by P.W. 1 Teja Ram, Babu Lal also stated that at the time of the incident, it was a dark night and no person could be identified even from a distance of about two passages. It was rainy season and there were clouds in the sky. He has stated that the took all the injured persons to the Pipar City Police Sta- tion. Babu Lal clearly stated that the way on which he was driving his tractor passed from the rear side of the house of Labu Ram while the incident took place in front of the house of Labu Ram. As a result, since while driving his tractor from the rear side of the house of Labu Ram, in the dark night, it was not possible for him to have seen the occurrence. As a result, since while driving his tractor from the rear side of the house of Labu Ram, in the dark night, it was not possible for him to have seen the occurrence. He is a chance witness. Besides, it was improbable for him to have seen the occurrence, as is alleged by him, in the dark night. (21). On the basis of above discussion, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who are partisan, interested, inter-related and inimically disposed against the accused-persons, being self- contradictory and improbable, does not inspire full confidence. Besides, since they have all hidden the injuries of accused- persons and failed to explain the same, in the aforesaid circumstances, they have also lied in this respect. (22). As regards the F.I.R. Ex.P. 16 relied upon by the prosecution in its support, as is stated by P.W. 7 Ramu Ram and so also corroborated by P.W. 9 Ummaid Singh, Ramu Ram accompanied by other accused-persons reached the Police Station and Ramu Ram gave verbal report Ex. P. 16, being reduced to writing by Ummaid Singh while P.W. 1 Teja Ram has clearly stated that they straightway went to the Primary Health Center, Pipar City whereat the Medical Officer prepared a report on which signatures/thumb impressions of Teja Ram himself as well as Amara Ram, Ramu Ram and Shankar Ram were obtained and the same report was forwarded through Amara Ram to the Police Station, on which the case was registered. This version is not supported by either Ramu Ram or P.W. 9 Ummaid Singh. On the contrary, Teja Ram being the nephew of Ramu Ram as well as Labu Ram and also injured in the same incident being the most important witness of the prosecution could not have lied without any reason. On the face of this statement of Teja Ram, since no such report has seen the light of the day and on the contrary the prosecution has come forward with the version that P.W. 7 Ramu Ram lodged a verbal report Ex.P. 16 with P.W. 9 Ummaid Singh and, therefore, in absence of any acceptable explanation for this inconsistency and resultant suspicion about the authenticity and veracity of Ex.P. 16 F.I.R., it further arouses a great suspicion about the F.I.R. and the correct- ness of version recorded in the same. Therefore, this suspicious document purporting to be F.I.R. of the alleged incident, does not inspire confidence and the same cannot be used for corroborating the prosecution version. (23). Besides, as is the prosecution story, all the seven accused- persons were armed with such deadly cutting and sharp edged weapons, being `kassis with which they are alleged to have assaulted the injured prosecution witnesses but, since only two incised wounds were found on the persons of said injured prosecution witnesses and rest of the 24 injuries were result of blunt weapons, therefore, the medical evidence also does not support the prosecution evidence and the ocular evidence led by the prosecution is quite inconsistent with any contrary to the medical evidence and this also renders the prosecution story quite suspicious. (24). In the aforesaid circumstances, as is the defence version and so also brought out in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses from the very initial stage, since as many as five accused-persons were so injured in the same incident, as is borne out of the statement of P.W. 5 Dr. Bhandari and Ex. D. 4A to Ex.D. 8A Injury Reports, consequently, resulting in lodging of Ex.D. 9 F.I.R. No. 98/77 and consequential charge-sheet Ex.D. 10 against Teja Ram etc. and, as a result, it is also contended by the learned counsel for the accused-respondents, this possi- bility cannot be excluded that accused-persons were victims of the assault and they caused injuries, if any, to the prosecution witnesses, in exercise of their private right of defence of their persons and, therefore, they did not commit any offence. (25). The learned counsel for the prosecution has relied on the decision rendered in Lakshmi Singh and Ors.etc. vs. State of Bihar (1). (25). The learned counsel for the prosecution has relied on the decision rendered in Lakshmi Singh and Ors.etc. vs. State of Bihar (1). It was held by the Honble Supreme Court in the said decision as follows :– ``In a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following 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 lying 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. (26). In the present case as well, as stated above, accused Raja Ram received a grievous injury besides simple injury as well while his four other co-accused per- sons also received injuries. The accused-persons received not less than 19 injuries out of which three were caused by a sharp weapon besides the grievous one received by Raja Ram. All these injuries have gone unexplained on the part of the prosecution witnesses. The accused-persons are also found to have received all these injuries in one and the same incident. As a result, since all the prosecution witnesses have consistently denied causing and existence of such injuries of the accused-persons and, as a result, as held by the Honble Supreme Court, as above, the prosecution has definitely suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version of the incident. Besides, this conclusion is also irresistible that the prosecution witnesses while denying presence of injuries on the persons of the accused-persons have lied and, therefore, their evidence is unreliable. (27). Besides, this conclusion is also irresistible that the prosecution witnesses while denying presence of injuries on the persons of the accused-persons have lied and, therefore, their evidence is unreliable. (27). Besides, since as many as 5 accused-persons received as many as 19 injuries including one grievous and three injuries being caused by sharp weapons which were also on the heads of the injured accused-persons, as a result, the defen- ce theory cannot be held to be false or baseless on the face of existence of these injuries and, as a result, the defence is probabilized that the accused-persons were subjected to an assault by the complainant side as a result of which they received grievous and simple injuries caused by sharp as well as blunt weapons which prompted them to act in exercise of their private right of defence of their persons which resulted in injuries to the prosecution witnesses. Since the accused-persons received grievous as well as simple injuries, as above, in case they had also caused a grievous injury, if so assumed, to Labu Ram besides simple injuries to Labu Ram as well as his co-injured persons, the accused-persons cannot be held liable for exceeding their private right of defence of their persons. As a result, since the injured prosecution witnesses have failed to explain the injuries of the accused-persons and so it renders the defence version to be quite probable. (28). The burden of proving its defence is not as heavy as it is on the prosecu- tion to prove its case beyond reasonable manner of doubt. The defence can succeed in proving its defence by discharging its burden by establishing a mere balance of probabilities in its favour with regard to the circumstances which are found to be probabilized. The defence can establish preponderance of probability in its favour on the basis of material which may consist of oral or documentary evi- dence, admissions appearing in evidence led by the prosecution or elicited from the prosecution witnesses in cross-examination, presumptions and the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 1973 Yogendra Morarji vs. The State of Gujarat (2). (29). (29). As a result of above discussion, from which ever angle it is viewed, the learned trial Judge does not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity nor there is any misappreciation of prosecution evidence resulting in taking an erroneous view of the prosecution evidence and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order cannot be held to be perverse thereby warranting interference and reversal of the same. Besides, this is an appeal against acquittal and, in the aforesaid circumstances, the Court has to bear in mind that there is a general presumption in favour of the innocence of the persons accused in criminal cases and that presumption is only strengthened by the acquittal. Secondly, every accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt regarding his guilt and when the trial court acquitted him, he would retain that benefit in the appellate court also. Thus the appellate court in appeals against acquittal has to proceed more cautiously and only if there is absolute assurance of the guilt of the accused, upon the evidence on record, that the order of acquittal is liable to be interfered with or disturbed. Dhanna etc. vs. State of M.P. (3). (30). In the result, this appeal is wholly devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. (31). Therefore, this appeal is dismissed thereby affirming the impugned judgment and order of acquittal under appeal. The accused- respondents are on bail and their bail bonds are cancelled.