Judgment GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THROUGH this appeal appellants Bhura Ram, Hari Ram, Jeevan Ram, Rawat Ram and Gokul Ram have called in question the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur dated 15-3-1983 whereby he convicted appellant Bhura under Ss. 147, 302/149, 325 and 323/149 and the other appellants under Ss. 147, 302/149, 325/149 and 323/149, I. P. C. and sentenced them as follows :-u/s. 147, I. P. C. One year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default one month R. I. u/ss. 302/149 life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default one month R. I. u/s. 325 or 325/149 2 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100, in default one month R. I. u/ss. 323/147 one month R. I. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE case relates to an occurrence which took place on 18-9-1980 at about 7. 45 a. m. in the town of Nagaur in which injuries were caused to Sanwata Ram (deceased) and Jhumer Ram, P. W. 4. The prosecution case is that Sanwata Ram (deceased), Jhumer Ram, P. W. 4 and Sarupa Ram, P. W. 1 had gone to Nagaur on 17-9-1980 in connection with their case. They stayed with Shri Swarn Singh Advocate during night. Next day i. e. on 18-9-1990 while going towards the market, as they crossed Nakash Gate the five accused having lathis and spear in their hands, telling "mar Do Jan Se Mar Do," came there and started giving beating to Sanwata Ram, and when Jhumer Ram and Sarupa Ram tried to intervene injuries were caused to Jhumer Ram but Sarupa Ram escaped injuries though he was also chased. It is said that the accused bore ill-will against the deceased who had won the Panchayat election. Sanwata Ram was taken to the hospital by Bhanwar Dan ASI, P. W. 7, Jhumer Ram lodged F. I. R. Ex. P-2 at 8. 30 a. m. before Jai Singh P. W. 19 at the Hospital, on which a case under Ss. 147, 148, 323, 341, 342 and 307, I. P. C. was registered. The injuries of Jhumer Ram and Sarupa Ram were examined by Dr. Vijay Singh, P. W. 18. Sanwata Ram was shifted to Bikaner for treatment but he succumed to the injuries on 22-9-1980. Autopsy was held by Dr. 147, 148, 323, 341, 342 and 307, I. P. C. was registered. The injuries of Jhumer Ram and Sarupa Ram were examined by Dr. Vijay Singh, P. W. 18. Sanwata Ram was shifted to Bikaner for treatment but he succumed to the injuries on 22-9-1980. Autopsy was held by Dr. R. K. Gehlot, P. W. 17. During investigation the police inspected the site, interrogated the witnesses, held the inquest and arrested four accused viz. Bhura Ram, Hari Ram, Jeevan Ram and Gokul Ram. A challan was filed against them. The Court took cognizance against Rawata Ram and he was also put to trial. ( 3 ) ACCUSED Bhura Ram was charged with the offence under Ss. 147, 302, 302/149, 325, 323/149, I. P. C. and remaining accused were charged with Ss. 147, 302, 302/149, 323, 323/149 and 325/149, I. P. C. They pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses. Accused in their statements under S. 313, Cr. P. C. denied accusation. Their case was that they have been falsely implicated in the case because of enmity. They examined 10 witnesses. Rawata Ram accused went into the witness-box in defence. ( 4 ) THE learned Sessions Judge held that Sanwata Ram had sustained injuries in the occurrence and his death was homicidal in nature. He further found that all the five accused formed unlawful assembly and had participated in the occurrence. He therefore convicted and sentenced them as above. ( 5 ) WE have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent and have perused the record of the case. At the outset, it may be stated that Jeevan Ram and Gokul Ram expired after filing appeal. ( 6 ) THE contention of Mr. Singh was that the F. I. R. was not sent to the Magistrate on the same day though the Court of the Magistrate was situate in the same town which shows that the F. I. R. was not recorded at the time stated therein and it is post-investigation document. It was pointed out that the name of accused Rawata Ram was not disclosed to Bhanwar Dan who had reached the site immediately after the occurrence and this shows that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The further contention of Mr. It was pointed out that the name of accused Rawata Ram was not disclosed to Bhanwar Dan who had reached the site immediately after the occurrence and this shows that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The further contention of Mr. Singh was that the injuries found on the three accused Gokul, Jeevan Ram and Hari Ram have not been explained and therefore the trial Court has committed error in convicting the appellants. It was vehemently contended that Sanwata Ram had not sustained any injury on the head in the occurrence and as the other injuries were not caused on his vital parts the accused could not be convicted under S. 302, I. P. C. and at the most they could be convicted u/s. 323, I. P. C. He argued that the accused were attacked by the members of the complainant party, and hence the accused had a right of private defence to cause injuries to the members of the complainant party, he also hinted that it might be a case of free fight. ( 7 ) AS against this, Mr. Singhvi, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the trial Court has dealt with all the contentions raised by the accused and there are no grounds to doubt the prosecution story. According to him, the accused have been rightly convicted by the trial Court. ( 8 ) WE have given the matter our thoughtful consideration. The injury report of Sanwata Ram Ex. P-21 prepared by Dr. Vijay Singh, P. W. 18 on 18-9-1980 indicates that he had the following injuries on his person :-1. A lacerated wound 3. 5 cm. x 0. 3 cm. x muscle deep on the back of left forearm, 4 cm. below the left elbow. There is diffuse swelling all around the wound. 2. A lacerated wound 1 cm. x 0. 2 cm. x muscle deep on the back of left forearm, 9 cm. below the left elbow longitudinally placed. 3. Diffuse tender swelling on the lower 10 cm. of the right forearm. 4. An abrasion 0. 4 cm. x 0. 4 cm. on the dorsum of terminal phalanx of right middle finger. 5. A lacerated wound 3 cm. x 0. 4 cm. x muscle deep on the front of left leg, 17 cm. below the apex of left patella. 6. A lacerated wound 1. 4 cm. x 0. 3 cm. 4. An abrasion 0. 4 cm. x 0. 4 cm. on the dorsum of terminal phalanx of right middle finger. 5. A lacerated wound 3 cm. x 0. 4 cm. x muscle deep on the front of left leg, 17 cm. below the apex of left patella. 6. A lacerated wound 1. 4 cm. x 0. 3 cm. x muscle deep on the front of left leg, 10 cm. above the left ankle. 7. A lacerated wound 2. 5 cm. x 0. 3 cm. x muscle deep on the front of right leg, 8 cm. above the right ankle. 8. A lacerated wound 5 cm. x 0. 4 cm. x muscle deep on the front of right leg, 16 cm. above the right ankle. 9. A lacerated wound 1 cm. x 0. 2 cm. x. muscle deep on the front of right leg, 23 cm. above the right ankle. 10. A bruise 7 cm. x 2 cm. on the lateral side of right thigh 24 cm. above the right knee. 11. A bruise 15 cm. x 3 cm. on the back in the infrascapular region transversely placed. 12. An abrasion 0. 3 cm. x 0. 1 cm. on the dorsum of terminal phalanx of right thumb. 13. Multiple bruises of various sizes on both buttocks. ( 9 ) AS a result of the X-Ray examination held in respect of injuries No. 1, 3 and 11, injuries Nos. 1 and 3 were found to be of grievous nature. Dr. Vijay Singh deposes in clear terms that the injuries recorded on Ex. P-21 were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Dr. Vijay Singh further states that he had not seen any injury on the head of Sanwata Ram. According to him Sanwata Ram was in semi-conscious condition when he was examined by him and his three companions and they did not notice any injury on the head of Sanwata Ram. He gives categorical statement that the entire body of Sanwata Ram was seen with meticulous care but there was no injury found on his head and even tenderness was not noticed on his head. ( 10 ) THE statement of Dr. Vijay Singh makes it clear that on 18-9-1980 when Sanwat Ram was examined by team of doctors there was no injury on his head. It is relevant to state that according to the post-mortem report Ex. ( 10 ) THE statement of Dr. Vijay Singh makes it clear that on 18-9-1980 when Sanwat Ram was examined by team of doctors there was no injury on his head. It is relevant to state that according to the post-mortem report Ex. P-20 there was blood clot of 2. 5 cm. x 2 cm. in the mastoid process of scalp of Sanwat Ram and that was the cause of his death. It is also to be noticed that at the time of post-mortem examination as many as 22 external injuries were noticed by Dr. Gehlot. Dr. Vijay Singh deposes in clear terms that injuries Nos. 13 to 22 were not there when he had examined the injuries of Sanwat Ram and it is possible that these injuries were sustained by him afterwards. It is, of course, a mystery as to how as many as 10 more injuries were found on the person of Sanwat Ram at the time of post-mortem examination when he was all the time hospitalised from 18th to 22nd of Sept. , 1980. Though suggestions have been put in the cross-examination of the Medical Officers that those injuries could be suffered by fall or if the injured in unconscious condition hit the hard surface. The Medical Officers have denied that internal injury at mastoid process could be sustained by a fall. In any case, in view of the categorical statement of Dr. Vijay Singh there is no hesitation in saying that there was no external injury on the head of Sanwat Ram on 18-9-1980. ( 11 ) AN attempt has been made by the prosecution to show that there could be internal injury without external mark. In this connection it is relevant to state that according to the Medical Officers, the injury must have been caused with great force. Had the injury been caused by applying great force there was bound to be some external mark on the head. Besides that, there is no convincing direct evidence on record that the accused had caused any injury on the head of Sanwat Ram. ( 12 ) SARUPA Ram, P. W. 1 does not say in his examination in chief that any of the accused had caused injuries on the head of the deceased, but in his cross-examination he states that Sanwat Ram had suffered various injuries on his head. ( 12 ) SARUPA Ram, P. W. 1 does not say in his examination in chief that any of the accused had caused injuries on the head of the deceased, but in his cross-examination he states that Sanwat Ram had suffered various injuries on his head. He further says that though he could not see as to whether the head injuries had oozed blood but the turban of the deceased was soiled with blood and the Sub-Inspector had also seen that there was blood oozing from the head injury. This part of the statement of Sarupa Ram cannot be believed in view of the fact that not a single injury was found by the Medical officer when Sanwat Ram was examined immediately after the occurrence. Jai Singh P. W. 19 Sub-Inspector had also examined the injuries of Sanwat Ram in the hospital and had prepared memo Ex. P-1. He also does not record any head injury on Sanwat Ram. Even it is not mentioned in the report that there was blood on the head of Sanwat Ram. On the contrary, in the report of Jai Singh, it has been mentioned that there was no injury from neck to head of Sanwat Ram. It is thus obvious that whatever had been deposed by Sarupa Ram regarding the head injury of Sanwat Ram is not correct, Jhumer Ram, P. W. 4 does not say that he had seen any accused causing injury on the head of Sanwat Ram. At the same time he also says that he did not see blood on the head of Sanwat Ram. It is thus obvious that the statement of Sarupa Ram in this regard is incorrect and no injury was caused on the head of Sanwat Ram. ( 13 ) EVEN Dr. Gehlot deposes that injury No. 22 was not visible by external examination and it could be detected only after the skull was opened. He states in categorical terms that there was no haematoma on the head. Keeping in view the medical evidence and the direct evidence on record, it is difficult to hold that deceased had suffered injury No. 22 which was fatal injury, in the occurrence. The accused therefore, cannot be held responsible for this injury. ( 14 ) THE next point to be considered is whether accused Rawata Ram had also taken part in the occurrence. The accused therefore, cannot be held responsible for this injury. ( 14 ) THE next point to be considered is whether accused Rawata Ram had also taken part in the occurrence. Both Sarupa Ram and Jhumer Ram depose that Rawata Ram was having spear in his hand and he had caused injury to the deceased. As no sharp edged weapon injury was found on the person of Sanwat Ram, the witnesses state that Rawata Ram had used reverse side of the spear and he had caused injury by using the spear as lathi holding its sharp side. The prosecution version is that the accused had collected there with an object of causing the death of Sanwata Ram. It is difficult to believe that despite having spear, a formidable weapon, in his hand Rawata Ram would not cause injuries by its sharp side. It has come on record that both the eye-witnesses Sarupa and Jhumer Ram were on inimical terms with accused Rawat Ram. Various documents placed on record are indicative of the fact that Jhumer Ram and Sarupa had cause to implicate accused Rawat Ram falsely. Rawat Ram had filed a case u/s. 107, Cr. P. C. against Sarupa and Jhumer Ram on 25-8-1980. The complaint is Ex. D-21 on record. Sarupa and Jhumer Ram were challaned vide Ex. D-24 on the report of Ramkaran s/o Ganesh in which Rawat Ram was witness in favour of the prosecution. It is obvious that both these witnesses had reason to be hostile to Rawat Ram. The rule of prudence is that on the testimony of such witnesses the conviction should not be founded unless it is corroborated by other independent evidence. ( 15 ) THE prosecution case is that P. W. 8 Maga Ram had reached the place of occurrence. Maga Ram says that he had seen the occurrence but he denies in emphatic terms that accused Rawata Ram was there. The witness had been declared hostile. He denies that in order to help the accused he was suppressing the truth. His statement recorded u/s. 164, Cr. P. C. has also been brought on record wherein he had also not disclosed the name of Rawata Ram accused as assailant. This clearly goes to show that Rawata Ram had not taken part in the occurrence. He denies that in order to help the accused he was suppressing the truth. His statement recorded u/s. 164, Cr. P. C. has also been brought on record wherein he had also not disclosed the name of Rawata Ram accused as assailant. This clearly goes to show that Rawata Ram had not taken part in the occurrence. ( 16 ) IN this connection we may also refer to the statement of A. S. I. Bhanwar Dan, P. W. 7 who was staying in the quarter near the place of occurrence. He states that on hearing noise he rushed to the spot where he found Sanwata Ram lying in injured condition. According to him Sarupa Ram and Jhumer Ram, who were there, at the spot informed him that four persons had given beatings to Sanwat Ram. There could not be any reason for Bhanwar Dan to help accused Rawata Ram. He deposes in emphatic terms that the witnesses had not disclosed the name of Rawata Ram as one of the assailants. ( 17 ) EVEN the statements of Sarupa Ram and Jhumer Ram indicate that Rawata Ram was not there. What the witnesses state is that Rawata Ram participated in the occurrence for some time and then he went away and only four persons continued to give beatings. This part of the statements of the witnesses can hardly be believed. If there was unlawful assembly of the five accused there could not be any reason for Rawata Ram to leave the place in between the occurrence. ( 18 ) THE case for accused Rawat Ram is that he was not there in Nagaur. He has led defence evidence to establish his plea of alibi. D. W. 7 Mangilal deposes that he was Vikas Adhikari of Jayal Panchayat Samiti and accused Rawat Ram had placed joining report before him at the opening of the office. It may be that in the report Rawat Ram had put date 17 below his signatures but he submitted joining report on 18-9-1980 which proves that he was in village Jayal on 18-9-1980 at about 11 a. m. It is of course possible that he could reach Jayal from Nagaur even after the commission of occurrence but there are statements of other persons who state that accused Rawat Ram had met them in the morning at Jayal. Bhaga Ram is the Manager of Rural Bank. Bhaga Ram is the Manager of Rural Bank. He states that Rawat Ram had met him in the morning. It has not been suggested that this witness is in any way related to the accused. ( 19 ) ON consideration of the prosecution and defence evidence produced in the case, we are of the view that Rawat Ram had not taken part in the occurrence and he has been falsely implicated in the case. ( 20 ) AGAINST the other four accused persons there are statements of Sarupa Ram. P. W. 1, Jhumer Ram, P. W. 4, Maga Ram, P. W. 8, Bhanwar Dan, P. W. 7 and Badri Ram, P. W. 11. P. W. 1 Sarupa Ram states that he along with Sanwata Ram, deceased and Jhumer Ram were going towards the market and as they passed through Nakas Gate, Jeevan Ram, Hari Ram, Bhoora Ram and Gokal Ram armed with lathis started beating Sanwat Ram. According to him, the accused expressed their intention to kill Sarpanch. The witness says that when he implored the accused that they should not beat him, Gokal Ram and Jeevan Ram tried to beat him, but he escaped by running away though both the accused chased him for about 5-7 steps. According to him both Gokul Ram and Jeevan Ram went there and again started beating to Sanwat Ram. He says that Jeevan Ram and Bhura Ram caused injuries to Jhumer Ram also. He then states that on their shoutings neighbours including Magharam reached there. Almost to the same effect is the statement of Jhumer Ram, P. W. 4 who says that he also had sustained injuries in the occurrence. ( 21 ) BOTH the witnesses Saruparam and Jhumer Ram admit that they belonged to the party of the deceased Sanwat Ram and there was litigation pending between them and the accused. Various documents have been placed on record like Exs. D-1 to D-16. They are First Information Reports lodged one or the other party. In some cases accused Jeevan Ram, Hari Ram and Bhura have been named as the accused. In the other cases, the reports were lodged against the deceased and his brother Ramdev. The fact remains that the witnesses are not independent persons and are hostile to the accused. However, by itself this is no ground to reject their entire testimony. In some cases accused Jeevan Ram, Hari Ram and Bhura have been named as the accused. In the other cases, the reports were lodged against the deceased and his brother Ramdev. The fact remains that the witnesses are not independent persons and are hostile to the accused. However, by itself this is no ground to reject their entire testimony. We will see if the testimony of these witnesses finds corroboration from some independent evidence. ( 22 ) IT is not disputed that Maga Ram, P. W. 8 worked in the Post Office which was situate near Nakas Gate. He deposes that while working in the Post Office he heard shoutings and he saw that accused Bhura, dhokal, Hariram and Gokul were beating Sanwat Ram, Sarpanch. He says that Jhumer Ram had told him at the spot that he was also beaten. The witness has been declared hostile on the ground that he has not named Rawat Ram as one of the accused. The statement of Maga Ram is most natural and his testimony cannot be thrown away on the ground that his statement was recorded u/s. 164, Cr. P. C. and he says that in that statement he had named accused Jeevan at the instance of the police. It seems that the witness did not know the name of Jeevan Ram and he was informed that 4th assailant was Jeevan Ram. Though he names him as dhokal but that does not absolve accused Jeevan as he identified Jeevan Ram as the assailant. By his testimony it is fully established that all the four accused viz. Gokul, Jeevan, Bhura and Hari had caused injury to Sanwat Ram and Jhumer Ram. ( 23 ) AS already stated Bhanwar Dan, A. S. I. , P. W. 7 was the first police official to reach the place of occurrence from the quarter of Jivraj Singh where he was staying in the night. He deposes that Jhumer Ram had told him that the assailants were four in number and one of them was Bhura. He has not been able to name the other accused person. Be that as it may, by his testimony it is fully established that immediately after the occurrence he was informed that four persons including Bhura had caused injuries to Sanwat Ram. He has not been able to name the other accused person. Be that as it may, by his testimony it is fully established that immediately after the occurrence he was informed that four persons including Bhura had caused injuries to Sanwat Ram. ( 24 ) BADRI, P. W. 11 does not identify the accused persons but his statement also indicates that four persons had assaulted the victim. ( 25 ) IN our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has not erred when he found on the basis of direct evidence that four accused Jeevan, Gokal, Bhura and Hari had caused injuries to Sanwat Ram and Jhumer Ram. ( 26 ) NOW, the next important question that calls for consideration is as to whether the accused had sustained injuries in that occurrence and if so, what is its effect. ( 27 ) DR. Vijay Singh, P. W. 18 proves the injury report Ex. D-10 of Gokul, Exs. D-11 of Jeevan Ram and D-12 of Hari Ram. He deposes that there were following injuries on the person of Gokul in the evening of 18-9-1990 :-1. Bruise 6 cm. x 2 cm. on the front of right shoulder. 2 A swelling 5 cm. x 4 cm. on the front of right forearm 4 cm. above the wrist. 3. A swelling 4 cm. x 3 cm. on the medial side of right palm. 4. A bruise 7 cm. x 3 cm. on the back of right thigh in the middle part. 5. A bruise 14 cm. x 1 cm. on the left supra scapular region of back, transversely placed. 6. A bruise 15 cm. x 1. 5 cm. on the right scapular region of back, transversely placed. 7. A bruise 13 cm. x 1 cm. on the right infra scapular region of back. 8. A bruise 11 cm. x 2. 5 cm. on the left side ofinter scapular region of back. ( 28 ) HE then says that Jeevan had following six injuries. 1. Swelling 6 cm. x 4 cm. on the back of left forearm 9 cm. below the left elbow. 2. A bruise 7 cm. x 4 cm. on the lateral surface of upper part of left upper arm. 3. A swelling on the lateral border of left hand; 3 cm. x 2 cm. in size. 4. A bruise 2 cm. x 1 cm. x 4 cm. on the back of left forearm 9 cm. below the left elbow. 2. A bruise 7 cm. x 4 cm. on the lateral surface of upper part of left upper arm. 3. A swelling on the lateral border of left hand; 3 cm. x 2 cm. in size. 4. A bruise 2 cm. x 1 cm. on the dorsum of proximal phalange of right index finger. 5. A swelling 5 cm. x 4 cm. on the lateral surface of left leg, 11 cm. above the left ankle. 6. An abrasion 2 cm. x 0. 5 cm. on the front of right leg, 12 cm. above the right ankle. ( 29 ) ACCORDING to the medical evidence, there were following five injuries on the person of Hariram. 1. A bruise 6 cm. x 2 cm. on the right gluteal region. 2. An abrasion 0. 4 cm. x 0. 4 cm. on the dorsum of proximal inter phalangeal joint of right index finger. 3. Two abrasions of 0. 7 cm. x 0. 1 cm. and 0. 6 cm. x 0. 1 cm. on the dorsum of proximal phalanx of right middle finger. 4. An abrasion 1 cm. x 0. 2 cm. on the back of right side elbow. 5. A bruise 7 cm. x 1 cm. on the left side of back at the level of thorax 8th to 10th vertebra 3 cm. midline. ( 30 ) THE duration of the injuries was within 9 to 12 hours. The prosecution has tried to explain the injuries of the accused in two ways. First the persons collected near the place of occurrence had pelted stones on the accused when they were giving beatings to Sanwat Ram and Jhumer Ram. Second, Mod Singh, P. W. 16 had chased the accused persons to arrest them and during the chase they fell down in the field on the stem (Doka) while running. ( 31 ) AS regards the first explanation, in our opinion the injuries found on the persons of Gokul, Jeevan and Hariram could not be caused by pelting stones. All these injuries were bruises or swellings. Some of the bruises were even 10 cms. in length. If a stone is pelted from distance, it is bound to tear the skin and there is great possibility of bleeding of the injuries due to the roughness and angularity of the stones. All these injuries were bruises or swellings. Some of the bruises were even 10 cms. in length. If a stone is pelted from distance, it is bound to tear the skin and there is great possibility of bleeding of the injuries due to the roughness and angularity of the stones. However, in the instant case none of the injuries of the accused had bled. There was no tear of skin. Obviously the accused had not suffered those injuries by stones. ( 32 ) IT is significant to point out that clear-cut questions were asked in cross-examination of two witnesses; Jhumer Ram and Saruparam that they had lathis in their hands. The witnesses have denied that Sanwat Ram or they had lathi in their hands. The witnesses depose that they were empty handed. However, the statement of Bhanwar Dan, P. W. 7 belies the statement of these witnesses. Bhanwar Dan deposes in clear terms that both Jhumer Ram and Saruparam were having lathis in their hands when he reached the place of occurrence and when they boarded the Jeep. It is obvious that the two witnesses have deliberately concealed this fact that they had lathis in their hands. It is true that in their statements u/s. 313, Cr. P. C. the accused do not say that they had suffered injuries by lathis but the trend of cross-examination clearly reveals what they wanted to say, that they had been attracked by lathis. ( 33 ) AS to the second explanation given by the prosecution, it may be stated that the dokascannot be such hard as to cause injuries when one falls on them. Obviously such injuries could not be suffered by falling on the green dokas. The dried stems are very fragile and such injuries cannot be suffered in coming to their contact. Apart from this, the most of the injuries suffered by the accused were on the back side. It is not possible that accused while running would fall in such a manner as their back portion comes in contact with the stems. When a person runs because of chase, and he falls, in our opinion, he would fall in such a manner that his front portion comes in the contact of the object. It is obvious that injuries were not sustained by the accused by fall on the stems. When a person runs because of chase, and he falls, in our opinion, he would fall in such a manner that his front portion comes in the contact of the object. It is obvious that injuries were not sustained by the accused by fall on the stems. ( 34 ) THUS, both the explanations given by the prosecution for the injuries of the accused persons are not acceptable. ( 35 ) THE fact remains that in that occurrence the accused had also suffered as many as 20 injuries. It has come in the statement of P. W. 1 Sarupa Ram that he and Jhumer Ram had gone to Nagaur on the previous day as the accused wanted to kill Sanwat Ram. It is evident that the deceased and the witnesses had gone to Nagaur with a preparation that if Sanwant Ram was attacked they would be there to help him. The other party was likely to be at Nagaur that day was known to the complainant party because of the Court date. ( 36 ) IT appears that next morning both the parties happened to be near the Nakas Gate and there was a quarrel. It is not the case for the prosecution that because the accused first attacked, the complainant party had to cause injuries to the accused in exercise of right of private defence. It is also not the case for the accused that they were attacked and they had to cause injury to the members of the prosecution witnesses. It was obviously a case of free fight in which both the parties which were on inimical terms were ready to fight and there was pitched battle between them. In such a case the plea of right of private defence is not available to the accused persons. The accused are liable for the individual acts they committed during the occurrence. ( 37 ) THERE is no material on record as to who of the four accused caused grievous injuries to Sanwat Ram and therefore none of the accused can be convicted u/s. 325, I. P. C. We have already found that two accused had not caused fatal injury No. 22 recorded on the post-mortem report Ex. P-20. The accused therefore can be convicted u/s. 323, I. P. C. for causing simple injuries to Sanwat Ram and Jhumer Ram. P-20. The accused therefore can be convicted u/s. 323, I. P. C. for causing simple injuries to Sanwat Ram and Jhumer Ram. ( 38 ) CONSEQUENTLY, appeal of Jeevan Ram and Gokul abates. The appeal of Bhura Ram and Hari Ram is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants u/ss. 147, 302/149, 325/149 and 323/149 is vacated. Instead they are convicted under S. 323, I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for one year which they have already undergone. They are not required to surrender. The appeal of appellant Rawat Ram is allowed and he is acquitted of the charges. He is on bail. He shall not surrender to the bail bonds. Order accordingly. .