G. R MATHUR, J. This appeal has been preferred by Chhiddu Singh, Sheo Prakash, Sheo Bir Sigh and Ghanshyam Singh against the judgment and order dated 25-9-1980 of Vlth Additional Ses sions Judge, Kanpur in S. T. No. 10/m of 1980 convicting the appellants under Sec-lions 323, 324 and 302, read with Section 34 I. P. C. and sentencing them to 9 months R. I. , one year R. I. and imprison ment for life respectively, the sentences having been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellants deceased and injured belonged to village Karauli where there is an irrigation channel through which the villagers irrigate their fields. The parties are collaterals and litigation regarding some property was going on between them due to which their relations were strained. The agricultural land of deceased Beni Singh is adjoining to the agricultural land of accused Chhiddu Singh, which is on the eastern side. The irrigation channel runs parallel to their fields and the water flows from west to east. The deceased Beni Singh and his sons were irrigating their field from the aforesaid channel on 14-10-1979. At about 12. 00 noon Chhiddu Singh armed with lathi, Sheo Prakash Singh and Sheo Bir Singh armed with tabbals and Ghanshyam Singh armed with Sela (flat spear) came there and started to divert the flow of water to their own field which was objected to by the sons of Beni Singh. Chhiddu Singh said that hewould definitely irrigate his field on that day which was resisted by the sons of Beni Singh. Thereafter, all the four ac cused started assaulting with the weapons which they were carrying due lo which Beni Singh and his three sons Munna Singh, Ram Kumar and Vijai Kumar Singh received injuries. Beni Singh died on the spot. Later on Vijay Kumar Singh also succumbed to his injuries on 23-10-1979. Awritten F. I. R. of the incident was lodged by Ram Avtar Singh at 3. 15 p. m. on 14- 10-1979 at P. S. Bidhnu, which is 8 miles from the place of occurrence. Inthef. I. R. ,itwas mentioned that the brothers of the inform-anl had also wielded lathis due to which some injuries were caused to theaccused. 3. Awritten F. I. R. of the incident was lodged by Ram Avtar Singh at 3. 15 p. m. on 14- 10-1979 at P. S. Bidhnu, which is 8 miles from the place of occurrence. Inthef. I. R. ,itwas mentioned that the brothers of the inform-anl had also wielded lathis due to which some injuries were caused to theaccused. 3. P. W.-10 Ram Sagar Yadav, S. O. at P. S. Bidhnu commenced investigation of the case and recorded statement of Ram Avtar Singh and proceeded for the spot along with some police personnel. After reaching there, he held inquest on the body of deceased Beni Singh. He prepared a letter for C. M. O. for the purpose of con ducting post-mortem examination and also prepared photo lash and chalan lash. He conducted an inspection of the spot with the assistance of the first informant. He found some blood in the field of Ma/. id Mian. He collected samples of plain and blood stained earth from there. He found a phawra on thespot, on the wooden stick of which there was blood. The phawra and its stick were taken into possession and its memo was prepared. He also found a tab-bal and danda, which were also taken into possession. He recorded statement of the injured persons on 15-10-1979. Chhiddu Singh was arrested while he was going to Kanpur and he was detained in the lock-up of the police station at 11. 40 p. m. on 15-10-1979. The other accused had surrendered in Court, whose statement was recorded in jail on 27-10-1979. After completing in vestigation, he submitted charge-sheet against theaccused. In due course, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Ses sions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused on 25-4-1980, which were amended on 5- 9-1980. The accused were charged under Sections 323/34,324/34,302/34 and 302/34 I. P. C. , to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined 11 witnesses including two eye-witnesses. The accused in their statement denied the prosecution case and set-up a counter version. It was slated by Chhiddu Singh that he was ir rigating his field when Beni Singh and his sons came there who blocked the channed and diverted the water to their own field. The prosecution in support of its case examined 11 witnesses including two eye-witnesses. The accused in their statement denied the prosecution case and set-up a counter version. It was slated by Chhiddu Singh that he was ir rigating his field when Beni Singh and his sons came there who blocked the channed and diverted the water to their own field. When he raised on alarm Beni Singh and Ram Kumar Singh assaulted them and in self-defence they also caused injuries to the other side. The accused examined 4 witnesses in their defence. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the claim of self-defence set-up by the accused and con-vi> tcu and sentenced them as stated above. 4. We have heard Shri C. P. Singh for the appellants, the learned A. G. A. for the State and have perused the record. 5. Before considering the ocular tes timony, it will be useful to refer to the medical evidence on record. The injuries sustained by the complainant party may be noticed first. P. W.-7 Dr. Anil Kumar Mish-ra, Incharge P. H. C. , Bidhnu examined P. W.-3 Ram Kumar Singh, son of Beni Singh at 10. 00 a. m. and found the follow ing injuries on his person: (1) Contusion oblique 6. 5 cm. x 1. 5 cm. in size on the Lt. Scapula. (2) Abrassed contusion 6. 5 cm. x 6 cm. in size on the dorsum of Rt. hand. (3)Contusion of 6 cm. x 2 cm. in size on the Lat. aspect of Rl. Knee. (4) Abrasion 1 cm. x 0. 2 cm. on the Rt. side of groin 9 cm. middle from the ant. Sup. iliac spine of Rt. side. 6. In the opinion of the doctor, all injuries except injury No. 2 were simple and had been caused by blunt object and were one day old. 7. The same doctor examined P. W.-l Munna Singh, son of Beni Singh at 10. 30 a. m. on 15-10-1979 and found the follow ing injuries on his person: (1) Punctured wound on the lower back of post axillary fold about 1. 5 cm. deep. Depth seen with probe. Size 0. 7 cm. x 0. 7 cm. in sixc. Shirt and under shirt (Banian) sealed and handed over to C. P. 2616 Rakesh Kumar. 8. 30 a. m. on 15-10-1979 and found the follow ing injuries on his person: (1) Punctured wound on the lower back of post axillary fold about 1. 5 cm. deep. Depth seen with probe. Size 0. 7 cm. x 0. 7 cm. in sixc. Shirt and under shirt (Banian) sealed and handed over to C. P. 2616 Rakesh Kumar. 8. In the opinion of the doctor, the injury was simple and had been caused by pointed object and was one day old. 9. The same doctor examined Vijay Kumar Singh, son of Beni Singh at 11. 00 a. m. on 15-10-1979 and found the follow ing injuries on his person: (1) Incised wound on the Lt. side of scalp 9. 5 cm. x 1. 5 cm. x 4 cm. deep abou 19 cm. above the Lt. ear. (2) Abrasion 4 cm. x 0. 2 cm. on the top of Lt. shoulder. (3) Abrasion 4 cm. x 0. 2 cm. on the posterior aspect of Lt. forearm in about middle. (4) Contusion 6 cm. x 1. 5 cm. on the posterior aspect of Rt. Forearm 2. 5 cm. above the wrist joint. 10. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries No. 2 to 4 had been caused by blunt object and were simple in nature. Injury No. 1 was caused by sharp cutting object. 11. Vijay Kumar Singh succumbed to his injuries on 23-10-1979. P. W.-2 Dr. V. K. Gupta conducted post- mortem examina tion on his body on 25-10-1979 and found the following injuries on his person: (1) A stitched wound 8 cm. long on the left side of head 8 cm. above left car. One culling stitch wound is 8 cm. x 1 cm. x. . . . . . . . . . . (papertorn) deep (wound incised ). Healing tissue present on margins. (2) Contusion 12 cm. x 6 cm. on the back of right forearm underlying bone is fractured (ulna lower end ). (3) Abrasion scab 5 cm. x 1/2 cm. on the back of left forearm. (4) Lacerated wound 15 cm. x 9 cm. x muscle deep on right side of front and back of (papertorn ). 12. The internal examination showed fracture of left parietal and temporal bone and lower end of ulna. There was clotted blood in the membranes and the underly ing brain was cut and congested. on the back of left forearm. (4) Lacerated wound 15 cm. x 9 cm. x muscle deep on right side of front and back of (papertorn ). 12. The internal examination showed fracture of left parietal and temporal bone and lower end of ulna. There was clotted blood in the membranes and the underly ing brain was cut and congested. In the opinion of the doctor, death has occurred as a result of head injury. 13. P. W.-ll Dr. Satish Chandra, Medical Officer, Kanpur, conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased Beni Singh at 1. 00 p. m. on 16-10-1979 and found the following ante- mor tem inj uries on the same: (1) Incised wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep on left side of scalp 7 cm. from left eyebrow. (2) Incised wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep on right side scalp 10 cm. above from right eyebrow. (3) Abrasion 3 cm. x. 1 cm. on right eyebrow. (4) Incised wound 4 cm. x bone cut on back of right hand 2nd metacarpal cut. (5) Incised wound 4 cm. x 1 cm. x cavity deep on left side of chest 13 cms. below left nipple. (6) Abrasion 1 cm. x 1 cm. on Rt. thigh uppei part. 14. In the opinion of the doctor, death had been caused by shock and haemor rhage as a result of ante- mortem injury No. 5. 15. The injuries alleged to have been sustained by the accused may be con sidered now. D. W.-4 Dr. H. C. Prasad, Emergency Medical Officer, U. H. M. Hospital, Kanpur, examined accused Sheo Bir Singh at 2. 55 p. m. on 19-10-1979 and found the following injuries on his person: (1) Abrasion 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. on mid of forehead. Dry cust present. (2) C/o pain later aspect of lower l/3rd of Lt. thigh. (3) Septic incised wound 3 cm. x 1/2 cm. on back of lower l/3rd of Lt. forearm. (4) Contusion 3 cm. x 2 cm. on front of Lt. forearm upper end. (5) C/o pain Rt. lower chest. 16. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were caused by blunt object and friction except injury No. 3, which was caused by sharp instrument. The injuries were more than three days and less than seven days old and were simple in nature. 17. on front of Lt. forearm upper end. (5) C/o pain Rt. lower chest. 16. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were caused by blunt object and friction except injury No. 3, which was caused by sharp instrument. The injuries were more than three days and less than seven days old and were simple in nature. 17. The same doctor examined the injuries of accused Sheo Prakash at 3. 05 p. m. on 19-10-1979 and found the follow ing injuries on his person: (1) Abraded contusion 4 cm. x 2 cm. on top of head. Dry crust present. (2) Abrasion 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. on back of midoflt. forearm. Dry crust present. (3) Contusion 4 cm. x 2 cm. on Lt. deltoid region, bluish and blackish in colour. (4) Contusion 2 cm. x 1 cm. on back of lower l/3rdof Rt. forearm. (5) C/o pain on Rt. hip. 18. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries had been caused by blunt object and friction and were simple in nature. They were more than three days and less than seven days old. 19. The accused also examined D. W.-3 Dr. S. K. Chaddha, Medical Officer, Dis trict Jail Hospital, Kanpur, who stated on the basis of the entry made in the register that Chhiddu Singh accused was admitted in jail on 16-10-1979 but his injuries were not examined as it was mentioned that his injuries had already been examined in Bidhnu Hospital. Thereafter he stated that Sheo Prakash and Sheo Bir Singh were admitted in jail on 19-10-1979 and an entry was made in the register that their injuries had already been examined in some hospi tal of Kanpur and as such they were not examined by him. 20. P. W.-l Munna Singh is son of deceased Beni Singh and is an injured wit ness. He has stated that he along with his father Beni Singh and his brothers Ram Kumar Singh and Vijay Kumar Singh had gone to irrigate their field. At about 12. 00 noon, accused Chhiddu Singh armed with lathi, Sheo Prakash and Sheo Bir Singh armed with tabbals and Ghanshyam Singh armed with sela (spear) came there and diverted the flow of water from the irriga tion channel to their own field. At about 12. 00 noon, accused Chhiddu Singh armed with lathi, Sheo Prakash and Sheo Bir Singh armed with tabbals and Ghanshyam Singh armed with sela (spear) came there and diverted the flow of water from the irriga tion channel to their own field. This was objected to by his father and brothers but the accused said that they would definitely irrigate their field on that day and there after they started assaulting them. He, his father and brothers ran towards the field of Mazid and raised an alarm. The accused came there and started assaulting them with their weapons due to which he, his father and brothers received injuries. Beni Singh died on the spot and his body was placed below a tree in the field of llahi Mian. He has proved the F. I. R. , which was lodged by his brother Ram Avtar and the same is Exhibit Ka-1 on the record. He also stated that his father had a danda and his brother had a phawra. He identified the aforesaid objects, which were shown to him in Court and have been marked as Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2 respectively. 21. P. W.-3 Ram Kumar is also son of Beni Singh deceased and is an injured wit ness. He has corroborated the testimony of P. W.-l Munna Singh. He has stated that at about 12. 00 noon, he along with his father and brothers was irrigating their field. After sometime Chhiddu Singh armed with lathi, Sheo Prakash and Sheo Bir Singh armed with tabbals and Ghanshyam Singh armed with sela came there and started diverting the flow of water to their own field by cutting the channel. This was objected to by Beni Singh but Chhiddu Singh said that they would definitely ir rigate their own field on that day. There after all the accused assaulted them with their respective weapons. They ran towards the field of Mazid and raised an alarm but the accused came there and gave further blows to them and thereafter ran away. While running away Chhiddu Singh left his lathi and Sheo Prakash left his labbal. These were shown to him in Court and were identified by him. They are material Exhibit-4 and Exhibit-5. He has further stated that Beni Singh died on the spot and his brothers who had received injuries were examined in U. H. M. Hospi tal. While running away Chhiddu Singh left his lathi and Sheo Prakash left his labbal. These were shown to him in Court and were identified by him. They are material Exhibit-4 and Exhibit-5. He has further stated that Beni Singh died on the spot and his brothers who had received injuries were examined in U. H. M. Hospi tal. He has further stated that at the time of incident his father had a danda (Exhibit-1) and his brother Vijay Kumar had a Phawra (Exhibit-2) and the remaining persons on his side were empty handed. 22. P. W.-6 Sadho Ram, Head Con stable of P. S. Bidhnu has stated that a written F. I. R. of the occurrence was lodged by Ram Aytar at 3. 15 p. m. on 14-10-1979 on the basis of which he registered a case in the General Diary. In his cross-examina tion he denied the defence suggestion that Chhiddu Singh had come to the police station to lodge a report but the same was not taken down P. W.-5 Ram Bharoshe, Constable of P. S. Bidhnu has stated that he carried the body of deceased Beni Singh from village Karauli to the mortuary for the purpose of post-mortem examination. Similar statement has been given by P. W.-8 Krishna Bihari Pandey, O. P. Parade, Kot-wali, Kanpur, who carried the body of Vijay Kumar from U. H. M. Hospital to mortuary on 24-10-1979. P. W.-9 Rakesh Kumar of P. S. Bidhnu has stated that he took the injured Munna Singh, Vijay Kumar and Ram Kumar on 15-10-1979 to U. H. M. Hospital for their medical ex amination. P. W.-4 B. D. Maurya, S. I. of P. S. Kotwali has slated that (sic) inquest on the body of Vijay Kumar deceased in U. H. M. Hospital at 12. 00 noon on 24-10-1979 and thereafter sent the body for conducting post-mortem examination. P. W.-10 Ram Sagar Yadav, S. O. of P. S. Bidhnu is the Investigating Officer of the case. In his statement, he has given the details of the various steps taken by him during the course of the investigation of the case. He has further stated that the accused did not lodge any cross report nor any case was registered at their instance. In his statement, he has given the details of the various steps taken by him during the course of the investigation of the case. He has further stated that the accused did not lodge any cross report nor any case was registered at their instance. In his cross-ex amination, he has denied the defence sug gestion that Chhiddu Singh accused had come to the police station to lodge a report but the same was not taken downor that he was detained on the same day but his arrest was shown on the next day i. e. on 15-10-1979. He also denied the defence sugges tion that he deliberately did not gel the injuries of Chhiddu Singh examined or that the lalhi and tabbal had been handed over to him by the complainant Tarn Avtar Singh subsequenlly. 23. The accused examined two wit nesses on fact. D. W.-l Ramesh staled that his field is adjoining to the field of Chhiddu Singh. He had been alloited time up to 12. 00 noon for the purpose of irrigating his field. After he had completed irrigation of his own plots, he allowed Chhiddu Singh lo irrigale his plol al about 11. 00 to 11. 30 a. m. He further staled that he did nol see any "marpeet". In his cross-examination, he has staled that though his field required irrigation but he allowed Chhiddu to ir rigale his own field al aboul 11. 00 to 11. 30 a. m. D. W.-2 Jagdish Singh has staled that his field is al a short distance from the field of Chhiddu Singh. Initially the field of Ramesh Singh was being irrigated. There after, water was diverted to the field of Chhiddu at about 11. 15 a. m. At aboul 12. 00 to 12. 15 noon Ram Kumar armed with tabbal, Beni Singh, Munna Singh and Munna Lal armed wilh laihis came Ihere and siarted diverting the flow of waler lo their own field which was objected to by Chhiddu Singh. Munna Singh exhorted that they should be killed. Ram Kumar then assaulted Chhiddu Singh with tabbal which hit him on his and same was cut and the second blow hit him on his back. Then Sheo Bir Singh snatched the tabbal from the hand of Ram Kumar. Thereafter lat his were wielded from both the sides. Munna Singh exhorted that they should be killed. Ram Kumar then assaulted Chhiddu Singh with tabbal which hit him on his and same was cut and the second blow hit him on his back. Then Sheo Bir Singh snatched the tabbal from the hand of Ram Kumar. Thereafter lat his were wielded from both the sides. In his cross-examination, he has stated that Ghanshyam Singh was not present on the spot. He admitted that his sons Munnu Singh and Avdhar Singh were being prosecuted in a case under Section 427/435, I. P. C. , on the basis of the report lodged by Chandra Pal Singh. 24. We have given above the gist of the evidence, which is available on the record. 25. The question to be considered is whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case against the accused persons or the plea set-up by the accused and the evidence adduced by them together with other circumstances of the case create a reasonable doubt that the accused acted in exercise of their right of self-defence in causing injuries on the complainant party. So far as time and place is concerned, there is no dispute that the incident took place at about 12. 00 noon on 14-10-1979 in the agricultural field over diversion of flow of water from the irriga tion channel. The evidence on record con clusively establishes that two persons namely, Beni Singh and his son Vijay Kumar Singh died as a result of injuries received by them and two others, namely, Munna Singh and Ram Kumar (sons of Beni Singh) also received injuries in the incident in question. The prosecution has examined two eye- witnesses of the inci dent namely, Munna Singh and Ram Kumar, who are both injured witnesses. They were examined at 10. 00 and 10. 30 a. m. respectively on 15-10-1979 in P. H. C. Bidhnu. The injuries sustained by them have not been challenged by the defence. Thus, the presence of these witnesses on the spot cannot be doubted in any manner. These witnesses have stated that their field was being irrigated on the day of incident. At about 12. 00 and 10. 30 a. m. respectively on 15-10-1979 in P. H. C. Bidhnu. The injuries sustained by them have not been challenged by the defence. Thus, the presence of these witnesses on the spot cannot be doubted in any manner. These witnesses have stated that their field was being irrigated on the day of incident. At about 12. 00 noon Chhiddu Singh armed with lathi, Sheo Prakash and Sheo Bir Singh armed with tabbal and Ghan shyam Singh armed with sela (spear) came there, Chhiddu Singh diverted the flow of water to his field, which was objected to by Beni Singh and thereafter the accused started assaulting them. It may be noticed that on the side of the accused one person was armed with a blunt weapon and the remaining persons were armed with sharp edged weapons. Beni Singh sustained four incised wounds, Vijay Kumar sustained one incised wound while Munna Singh sustained one punctured wound. These persons had also contusions on their bodies which has been caused by a blunt weapon. Thus, the version of the prosecu tion that four accused assaulted the com plainant party with their respective weapons finds complete corroboration from the medical evidence on record. The injuries sustained by Beni Singh were serious and he died immediately on the spot, as there was an incised wound on his chest. Vijay Kumar also sustained an in cised wound on his scalp, which proved fatal and in spite of treatment in a good hospital, he died after a few days. P. W.-3 Ram Kumar has stated that Chhiddu Singh and Sheo Prakash had left their lathi and labbal respectively at the scene of commis sion of crime. P. W.-10 Ram Sagar Yadav, Investigating Officer of the case has staled that when he reached the place of occur rence he found the aforesaid weapons on the spot which were taken in possession by him and the same were identified by P. W.-3 in Court. In normal course of events, no one carries weapons while irrigating his field. The recovery of lathi and tabbal fur ther corroborates the prosecution case that the accused had come armed with weapons for the purpose of forcibly ir rigating their field and that on being ob jected to by the deceased Beni Singh, they caused injuries to the complainant party. The recovery of lathi and tabbal fur ther corroborates the prosecution case that the accused had come armed with weapons for the purpose of forcibly ir rigating their field and that on being ob jected to by the deceased Beni Singh, they caused injuries to the complainant party. Thus, the case of the prosecution is fully established from the evidence on record. 26. Chhiddu Singh in his statement under Section 313, Cr. PC. had stated that Ramesh was irrigating his field and after the same had been completed he allowed him to divert the flow of water to his own (Chhiddu Singh) field at about 11. 00 a. m. At about 11. 15 a. m. Beni Singh, Vijay Kumar, Ram Kumar, Munna Singh came there and after blocking the channel diverted the flow of water to their own field. When he objected to it, Munna Singh exhorted that he should be killed. There after Ram Kumar wielded a tabbal on his bead, which hit him on his car. The second blow by tabbal hit him on his back but thereafter his son Sheo Prakash snatched the tabbal. Beni Singh also assaulted him on his head by lathi. Thereafter, he also defended himself. He has further stated that he went to PS. Bidhnu but neither the report was taken down nor he was got medically examined. Subsequently, he was medically examined in the Jail Hospital. Sheo Prakash, Sheo Bir Singh and Ghanshyam Singh accused denied the prosecu tion case and did not admit their presence on the spot. Ghanshyam Singh specifically stated that he was present in another field and did not know anything about the oc currence. D. W.-4 Dr. H. C. Prasad has proved the injuries of Sheo Prakash and Sheo Bir Singh accused. They were medi cally examined at 2. 15 p. m. and 3. 05 p. m. respectively on 19-10-1979 i. e. five days alter the occurrence. Sheo Prakash had sustained two contusions, one abraded contusion and an abrasion. Sheo Bir Singh had sustained a septic incised wound 3 cm. x 1/2 cm. on back of lower l/3rd of left forearm besides one contusion and one abrasion. The defence has led no evidence to establish that Chhiddu Singh accused also received injuries in the incident. Ac cording to his own statement, he was not medically examined in P. H. C. Bidhnu. D. W.- 3 Dr. x 1/2 cm. on back of lower l/3rd of left forearm besides one contusion and one abrasion. The defence has led no evidence to establish that Chhiddu Singh accused also received injuries in the incident. Ac cording to his own statement, he was not medically examined in P. H. C. Bidhnu. D. W.- 3 Dr. S. K. Chhadha, Medical Officer of District Jail, Kanpur has stated that Chhiddu Singh was admitted in jail on 16-10-1979 but his medical examination was not done. The burden of proof that Chhiddu Singh received injuries in the incident lay upon the accused unless the said fact was admitted by the prosecution. However, they have failed to lead any evidence on this point. Learned counsel for the accused has laid great stress on the statement of Investigating Officer and urged that this clearly showed that Chhid du Singh had received injuries. In his cross-examination, P. W.-10 has stated that it was not mentioned in the 161 statement of Munna Singh that during the course of the "marpeet" the ear of Chhiddu Singh was cut by the tabbal blow given by the accused. However, he admitted that in the General Diary, it was written that Chhiddu Singh had sustained an injury on his ear during the course of "marpeet". Even assuming that the General Diary entry is an evidence of the fact that there was an injury on the ear of Chhiddu Singh but its nature and dimension are not at all established which are of vital importance. As shown earlier, the injuries sustained by the accused are all simple in nature and are very small in number. The dimension of the incised wound sustained by Sheo Bir Singh is also very small and is on the back of lower l/3rd of left arm. The fact that they waited for five days and got their injuries examined on 19-10-1979 itself shows that the same were of superficial character and did not require any immediate medical attention. The accused did not lodge any F. I. R. giving their version of the incident. Three ac cused, namely, Sheo Prakash, Sheo Bir Singh and Ghanshyam Singh had not been arrested by the police which is established from the fact that they got themselves medically examined in U. H. M. Hospital in the afternoon of 19-10-1979 Le. five days after the occurrence. This hospital is in the city of Kanpur. Three ac cused, namely, Sheo Prakash, Sheo Bir Singh and Ghanshyam Singh had not been arrested by the police which is established from the fact that they got themselves medically examined in U. H. M. Hospital in the afternoon of 19-10-1979 Le. five days after the occurrence. This hospital is in the city of Kanpur. The accused could have sent a written complaint by registered post to the S. S. P. Kanpur giving their version of the incident and for registering the case against the complainant party. During this period they could have also moved before the concerned Magistrate under "section 156 (3), Cr. PC. for registering a case against Beni Singh and others. However, they did nothing of the sort. The plea of self defence has been taken by Chhiddu Singh accused for the first time in Court when his statement was recorded on 14-8-1980 ex actly 10 months after the occurrence. It is difficult to believe that though Ram Kumar Singh accused assaulted Chhiddu Singh by Lathi twice but he did not receive any appreciable injury. It is also difficult to believe that Sheo Prakash was able to snatch the tabbal from the hands of Ram Kumar and was able to inflict very serious injures on the side of the complainant in the process of defending himself. If Beni Singh and his three sons (in all four persons) had come armed and had launched an attack on Chhiddu Singh and his sons the nature and complexion of the injury sustained by the two sides would have been entirely different and Beni Singh and Vijay Kumar would not have sustained such in juries which resulted in their death. Thus, the plea of self-defence taken by the ac cused is neither established nor it creates even a slightest doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution case. 27. Learned counsel for the appellant has also urged that prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained by the ac cused and, therefore, its case cannot be believed and the accused arc entitled to acquittal. As shown earlier, the injuries on the side of the accused are very small in number and are superficial in character. In the F. I. R. it was specifically mentioned that the brothers of the first informant had wielded lat his in their defence due to which the accused had received injuries. As shown earlier, the injuries on the side of the accused are very small in number and are superficial in character. In the F. I. R. it was specifically mentioned that the brothers of the first informant had wielded lat his in their defence due to which the accused had received injuries. D. W.-I has stated that his father had a danda and his brother Vijay Kumar had a phawra by which he had dug the nali. In his cross- examination, he has stated that Sheo Prakash was assaulting him with a tabbal but Chhiddu Singh came in between the same and it struck on his ear. He fur ther stated that the accused received in juries from their own weapons. P. W-3 has stated in his examination-in-chief that his father was armed with a danda and Vijay Kumar was armed with a phawra. In his cross-examination, he no doubt stated his brothers were not armed with any weapon and he did not know whether Chhiddu Singh, Sheo Bir Singh and Sheo Prakash received any injuries. The F. I. R. and the statement of the prosecution witnesses shows that Beni Singh was carrying a danda and Vijay Kumar deceased had a phawra with him for the purpose of irrigat ing the field. Phawra is a necessary agricul tural implement as it is used for removing the soil or for removing any obstruction in the flow of water. When the accused were assaulting the complainant party it is but natural that they would have used the lathi and phawra which were in their possession in order to defend themselves. In that process, some injuries would have been caused to the accused party which fact was staled at the earliest opportunity in the written F. I. R. which was lodged at 3. 15 p. m. on the same day. So it is not a case where the complainant or the witnesses have completely denied the possibility of the accused sustaining some injuries. That apart, it cannot be held as an absolute proposition of law that wherever the prosecution fails to meticulously explain the injuries sustained by the accused, the case must result in an acquittal. So it is not a case where the complainant or the witnesses have completely denied the possibility of the accused sustaining some injuries. That apart, it cannot be held as an absolute proposition of law that wherever the prosecution fails to meticulously explain the injuries sustained by the accused, the case must result in an acquittal. In Hare Krishna Singh and others v. Stale of Bihar, (1988) 2 SCC 95 , after a review of all the earlier decisions, it was held as under: "though the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt is on the prosecution, it is not the law or invariable rule that whenever the accused sustains an in jury in the same occurrence, the prosecution has to explain the injuries failure of which will mean that the prosecution has suppressed the truth and also the origin and genesis of the occur rence. When the prosecution comes with a definite case that the offence has been committed by the accused and proves its cast- beyond any reasonable doubt, it becomes hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain how and in what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on the person of the accused. " Therefore, on the facts and the cir cumstances of the case, no adverse in ference can be drawn against the prosecu tion merely on the ground that a very clear and detailed explanation has not been of fered for the injuries found on the person of the accused. 28. The learned Sessions Judge has observed at one place in the judgment that there was a free fight between the parties in which both sides used their weapons and had a trial of strength resulting into only minor injuries on accused side and two murders and some injuries on the other side. In view of the discussion made above, we are clearly of the opinion that the aforesaid observation of the learned Sessions Judge is wholly erroneous and is not at all borne out from the evidence on record. In view of the discussion made above, we are clearly of the opinion that the aforesaid observation of the learned Sessions Judge is wholly erroneous and is not at all borne out from the evidence on record. The evidence clearly establishes that the accused launched an attack on Bent Singh and his sons and whatever in significant and small number of injuries had been sustained by the accused, the same were caused to them when the com plainant party was trying to defend them selves from the danda and phawra which they had in their possession at the time of the incident. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the accused have rightly been convicted under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 302/34 and 302/34 J. P. C. , for committing the murder of Beni Singh and Vijay Kumar and causing injuries to Munna Singh and Ram Kumar. 29. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The conviction of the appel lants as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge and the sentences imposed there under are affirmed. The bail granted to the appellants is cancelled. They shall be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the sen tences imposed upon them. After they have been taken into custody their sureties and bail bonds shall stand discharged. 30. Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment to CMM, Kanpur Nagar, who shall ensure compliance of this order and submit a report within two months. Appeal dismissed .