JUDGMENT Singh, J. -- 1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of Cr A No. 105/92 & Cr rev. No. 368/91 arising out of the judgment and order passed in ST No. 118/84 whereby the respondents were acquitted and Cr A No. 500/91 arising out of S.T. No. 19/88 whereby the appellants were convicted. 2. The facts of the case (S.T. No. 118/84 CrA.No. 105/92) are that on 11.7.84 at about 7-7:15 p.m. P.W. 4 Majid Khan Patel was in his house in Agarda village. His sons P.W. 1 Chand Khan, P.W. 9 Rais Khan P.W. 2 Jahangir Khan, deceased Hamid Khan and Babu Khan were present in the house of Chand Khan and were going to take their meals. Sugrabi (PW. 7), wife of Majid Khan Patel, Nafisabi (P.W. 8), wife of Chand Khan, Kubrabi (P.W. 10), daughter of Majid Khan were also present. One person came from outside and informed that about 15-20 persons armed with weapons, had gathered near their village. After 15 minutes, appellants-Bala, Asraf and Jahngir armed with Tangiya (small axe) and Rashid Khan, Hannu Khan. Gafoor, Aalam, Man Khan, Kesar Khan, Babu, Moti, Idu, Rais Khan, Habib Khan, Bhai Khan, Rasul Khan, Sai Khan, Harde, Sakharam, Bhuriya. Anokhi, Gutti, Vishnu and some other persons armed with lathi, lohangi and Karpa came in front of the house of Chand Khan. They were hurling abuses. Appellants Jahangir, Balla and Asraf Khan entered into the house of Chand Khan and caught hold of Hamid Khan and dragged him out of his house and assaulted him with Tangiya and thereafter all the appellants gave him beating with their respective weapons. Babu Khan tried to intervene. He was also assaulted. When Majid Khan Patel tried to save his son Hamid Khan, he was also dragged and was assaulted. The appellants leaving three cycles in front of the house of Chand Khan, ran away from the spot. Hearing cries and alarm made by Chand Khan, Babu Khan and Hamid Khan etc., Kale Khan (P.W. 11), his son Imrat Khan (P.W. 5) and Yusuf Khan (P.W. 6) came to the house of Chand Khan. They saw the appellants going from the house of Chand Khan. The respondents gave them lathi-blows. These witnesses went to the house of Chand Khan and saw Majid Khan, Babu Khan and Hamid Khan seriously injured. They saw the appellants going from the house of Chand Khan. The respondents gave them lathi-blows. These witnesses went to the house of Chand Khan and saw Majid Khan, Babu Khan and Hamid Khan seriously injured. They were taken in a bus at 10.30 p.m. to P.S. Khategaon, where Chand Khan lodged FIR Ex. P. 1. The injured were sent to P.H.C. Khategaon where Dr. Suresh Suryavanshi (P.W. 16) examined them and found the following injuries on their bodies: Hamid Khan 1. Lacerated wound on left side of forehead on anterior 3rd of left pari carbo, vertically placed 2" long. 2. Lacerated wound on left side of forehead 1/2" lateral to injury No. placed vertically, 2" long. 3. Lacerated wound below injury No.2, 3/4" x 1/2". 4. Lacerated wound above injury No.1 and middle to injury No.1, 3/4" x 1/2". 5. Lacerated wound on the middle of head in midline, placed vertically 1-1/2" long. 6. Lacerated wound below injury No.5 placed vertically 1/2" x 1/2". 7. Contusion, red in colour on the left side of chest 3 1/2" x 3/4" . 8. Contusion red in colour on the lower part of left side of chest, placed vertically 4 1/2" x 1/2". All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and were grievous in nature vide Ex. P. 78. Babu Khan 1. Lacerated wound bleeding, on head on posterior of 3rd right parietal bone 2" away from midline, 2 3/4" x 1/4" bone deep. 2. Lacerated wound, bleeding, on the left leg in middle anteriorly placed, 1" x 1/4" x muscle deep. 3. Lacerated wound, bleeding, on 1/4" middle to injury No.2, 1" x 1/4" muscle deep. 4. Lacerated wound, bleeding, on 1" above injury No.2, 1/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep. 5. Lacerated wound, bleeding, 1" below injury No.2, 1/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep. 6. Lacerated wound, bleeding, below injury No.2, on left leg 1" x 1/4" x muscle deep. 7. Clinically fracture of left tibia bone in middle. 8. Lacerated wound, on left ear, middle portion, 3/4" x 1/4" x bone to cartilage (cartilage broken). 9. Lacerated wound, 1" away from angle of mouth, 1/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep. 10. Contusion on the left temporal medial part of the head 2" x 2". 11. Lacerated wound, on the lower 3rd of left forearm on radial side 1/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep. 12. 9. Lacerated wound, 1" away from angle of mouth, 1/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep. 10. Contusion on the left temporal medial part of the head 2" x 2". 11. Lacerated wound, on the lower 3rd of left forearm on radial side 1/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep. 12. Contusion, red in colour, on the lower 3rd of left forearm 2" x 2". 13. Contusion, red in colour, over middle of left forearm placed vertically 2" x 1/2". 14. Fracture of left radius and ulna. 15. Contusion, red in colour, on left side of back, on the middle of left scapula, placed obliquely 4" x1". 16. Contusion, red in colour, on the left scapula region 1/2" below injury No.15. 17. Contusion, red in colour, on the scapula, 1/2" below injury No. 15, placed obliquely, 4 1/2" x 1". 18. Contusion, on the left side of back in middle, placed obliquely 5" x 1". 19. Contusion, red in colour, on the middle of right side of back placed vertically 1 1/2" x 1/2". Dr. Suryavanshi opined that all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object vide report Ex. P. 77. Majid Khan 1. Lacerated wound, bleeding, on the left side of head, on the middle of left parietal bone placed vertically, 2 1/2" x 1/4". 2. Lacerated wound, on the right side of forehead, above inner comer of right eye-brow, placed transversely 1" x 1/2" x bone deep, vide report Ex. P. 18. Jahangir Khan 1. Abrasion on the right scapula 1" x 3/4". 2. Lacerated wound, red in colour, on right index finger 1/2" x 1/4" x muscle deep. 3. Contusion, red in colour, on the left side of chest on 3rd-4th sternum costal junction 1/4" x1". 4. Abrasion on the lower end of left leg 1/4" x 1/4". Dr. Suryavanshi opined that all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object vide report Ex. P. 81. Hamid Khan died in the night while Babu Khan succumbed to his injuries in M.Y. Hospital, Indore, on the 3rd day of the incident. Inquests were made on the dead-bodies and inquest reports were prepared. In post-mortem examination, almost the same injuries were found. Dr. Suresh Suyavanshi conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Hamid Khan. In internal examination, it was found that left parietal and frontal bones were broken in several pieces and brain matter was lacerated. Inquests were made on the dead-bodies and inquest reports were prepared. In post-mortem examination, almost the same injuries were found. Dr. Suresh Suyavanshi conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Hamid Khan. In internal examination, it was found that left parietal and frontal bones were broken in several pieces and brain matter was lacerated. The cause of death was shock, as a result of haemorrhage and brain injury. The injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, vide report Ex. P. 77. Dr. Riyaj Hussain conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Babu Khan and almost found the same injuries which were found by Dr. Suryavanshi in initial examination. Dr. Riyaj Hussain opined that the cause of death of Babu Khan was coma which was the result of head injuries vide report Ex. P. 95. P.W. 8 Shiv Narayan God, Sub-Inspector, started investigation. He went to the village Agarda and prepared spot-map Ex. P. 2 of the house of Chand Khan and Majid Khan and seized unstained and blood stained earth from the spot vide seizure memo Ex. P. 4. Three cycles lying in front of the house of Chand Khan, on one of which the name of appellant Hanif Khan was painted in red colour, were seized vide seizure memo Ex. P. 5. Investigating officer arrested the appellants. They gave information u/S. 27 of the Evidence Act and recovered their respective weapons, Tangiya, lohangi, lathi etc. Investigating officer also seized blood stained clothes-shirt and pejama from Rashid Khan, shirt and dhoti from Majid Khan, pejama from Rasul Khan, shirt from Said Khan, pejama from Gajanand, pejama from Sai Khan, pejama and shirt from Sai Khan, kurta and pejalna from Gutti, pejama and shirt from Hatam Khan, Kurta from Bhuriya, kurta and pejama from Bhai Khan, baniyan and pejama from appellant Gafoor Khan, baniyan from Habbu Khan, shirt and pejama from Hanif Khan, baniyan from Vishnu, shirt and pejama from Balla, were seized. All these articles were sent to FSL Sagar for chemical examination. The chemical examiner vide report Ex. All these articles were sent to FSL Sagar for chemical examination. The chemical examiner vide report Ex. P. 88 opined that shirt and pejama of Rashid, pejama of Rasul, shirt of Said, pejama and shirt of Sai Khan, kurta of Gutti, pejama and shirt of Hatam, kurta of Bhuriya, kurta and pejama of Bhai Khan, pejama of Gafoor Khan, baniyan of Habbu, shirt and pejama of Hanif, baniyan of Vishnu, shirt and pejama of Balla were found stained with blood. These articles were sent for further examination to Serologist Calcutta who vide his report Ex. P. 70 opined that pejama of Rashid, pejama of Rasul, pejama and shirt of Said Khan, kurta of Gutti, kurta and pejama of Bhai Khan, baniyan of Haboo were stained with human blood. After completion of investigation, challan u/Ss. 452, 148, 325/149, 302/149, 307/149 IPC was filed. The respondents pleaded not guilty. Their defence was that the complainant party attacked and assaulted them and in exercise of right of private defence of their body caused injuries. The learned trial Judge accepted the defence of the respondents and acquitted them. Hence, this appeal (Cr A No. 105/92) by the State and Cr rev. No. 368/91 by Chand Khan. Cr. A. No. 500/91. 3. On the same day i.e. 11.7.84 Hanif Khan (P.W. 1 S.T. No. 19/88) lodged FIR Ex. P.1 at 11.20 p.m. alleging that he, his father Asraf Khan, uncle Jahangir, Rashid Khan and Habib Khan, while returning from Khategaon, when reached at 7-7.15 p.m. in the field of Keshar Khan, adjacent to that of Majid Khan Patel, 17 persons including Majid Khan Patel, Jahangir Khan, Imrat Khan and Kale Khan, armed with lathi, farsi, lohangi and Tangiya attacked and caused them injuries. Crime No. 187/84 was registered and the injured were sent to P.H.C. Khategaon where Dr. Suresh Suryavanshi examined them and found the following injuries on their bodies: Asraf Khan 1. Lacerated wound, on the right side of head on right fronto-parietal junction, 1" away from midline placed obliquely 3/4" x 1/4" x bone deep. 2. Lacerated wound, bleeding, on anterior 1/3rd of right parietal bone, 1/2" away from midline placed obliquely, 1/2" x 1/4" x muscle deep. 3. Lacerated wound, bleeding, on the lower 3rd of vide report Ex. P. 9. Jagangir Khan 1. 2. Lacerated wound, bleeding, on anterior 1/3rd of right parietal bone, 1/2" away from midline placed obliquely, 1/2" x 1/4" x muscle deep. 3. Lacerated wound, bleeding, on the lower 3rd of vide report Ex. P. 9. Jagangir Khan 1. Lacerated wound, clotted blood present, on the head of midiline, 2 1/2" from hair margine over forehead, placed vertically 1/2" x 1/4" x muscle deep. 2. Lacerated wound, bleeding, on the right side of head on left occipital prominence 2" x 1/4" x bone deep. Rashid Khan 1. Lacerated wound, bleeding, on the head, on anterior 1/3rd of right parietal, placed transversely from midline to right side, 2 1/2" x 1/4" x bone deep. 2. Lacerated wound, bleeding, on the anterior 1/3rd of left parietal bone, placed transversely from midline to left side, 2 1/2" x 1/4" x bone deep. 3. Lacerated wound, bleeding, on the left albow on lateral aspect of humerus 3/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep. 4. Contusion, red in colour, on the left side of back, placed vertically from scapular to 8th rib, 7" x 3". 5. Contusion, red in colour, on the left side of back, placed obliquely from midline to the left side, 5" x 1/2". 6. Contusion, red in colour, 1" away from injury No.5, 5" x 1/2". 7. Contusion, red in colour, on the middle left thigh on lateral aspect 2 1/2" x 1/2". Habib Khan 1. Lacerated wound, bleeding, on lower 3rd of left arm on lateral aspect, 1/2" x 1/4" x muscle deep. 2. Contusion, red in colour, on the left forearm lateral aspect extending from left albow 2 1/2" x 1/2". 3. Lacerated wound, on the lower end of left leg lateral aspect 1/4" x 1/4". 4. Contusion, red in colour, on the middle of chest extending from posterior axillary line to middle circular line. 5. Contusion, red in colour, on the middle of left leg, posterior lateral aspect 4" x 1 1/2". 6. Contusion, red in colour, on the lower 3rd of left thigh, on anterior lateral aspect, 3" x 1/2". Dr. Suresh Suryavanshi proved injury reports Ex. P. 9, 10, 11 & 12 and opined that all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. Habib Khan had sustained fracture of left fibula bone vide X-ray report Ex. P. 14. The Investigating officer Shivnarayan God (P.W. 12) visited the spot and prepared spot map Ex. Dr. Suresh Suryavanshi proved injury reports Ex. P. 9, 10, 11 & 12 and opined that all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. Habib Khan had sustained fracture of left fibula bone vide X-ray report Ex. P. 14. The Investigating officer Shivnarayan God (P.W. 12) visited the spot and prepared spot map Ex. P. 3 of the field of Keshar Khan. The appellants (complainant party in S.T. No. 118/84) were arrested. After completion of investigation, challan was filed. The appellants pleaded not guilty and false implication. Their defence was that 27 persons including the complainant party, entered the house of Chand Khan and Majid Khan Patel and murdered Hamid Khan and Babu Khan and caused injuries to Majid Khan Patel and Jahangir Khan etc. The learned Session Judge after appreciation of evidence convicted the appellants u/Ss. 148, 325/149 and 323/149 IPC and sentenced each of them u/S. 148 IPC to one year's R.I. and fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine, one month imprisonment, u/S. 325/149, five years R.I. and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, one month R.I. and u/S. 323/149, 1 year R.I. 4. We shall first take up appeal No. 105/92 which has been filed by the State Govt. against the judgment of acquittal passed in S.T. No. 118/84. It was file a against all the 27 accused persons but this Court granted leave only against respondents No. 1 Hannu @ Hanif Khan, No.2 Gafoor Khan, No.3 Asraf, No. 4 Jahangir, No. 20, Man Khan, No. 26 Balla Khan and No. 27 Rashid Khan and No. 15 Aras Khan. We shall, therefore, consider the question whether the above eight respondents have been wrongly acquitted by the trial Court. 5. The fact of homicidal death of the deceased Hamid Khan and Babu Khan has not been challenged before us and rightly so as it is amply proved from the inquest reports, ocular and medical evidence. 6. Shri Desai, learned G.A. argued that the impugned judgment suffers from perversity, material irregularity and illegality. 5. The fact of homicidal death of the deceased Hamid Khan and Babu Khan has not been challenged before us and rightly so as it is amply proved from the inquest reports, ocular and medical evidence. 6. Shri Desai, learned G.A. argued that the impugned judgment suffers from perversity, material irregularity and illegality. The respondents attacked the complainant party at their house and murdered two persons of the complainant party and the learned trial Judge acquitted them on the basis of minor contradictions occurred in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and giving them benefit of right of private defence of body holding that the complainant party assaulted respondents in the field of Kesar Khan and in cross case ST No. 19/88 convicted the complainant party. On the other hand, Shri Jaisingh, LC for the respondents, supported the impugned judgment and contended that the appellate Court has to give due weight to the views of the trial Judge, who had added advantage of seeing the demeanour of the prosecution witnesses. Their evidence is full of contradictions and the learned trial Judge rightly disbelieved them and rightly held that they had right of private defence of their person. 7. We considered the arguments advanced by counsel for both sides and perused the record. There is no quarrel with the principle that while dealing with appeals against acquittal, appellate Court is required to keep in mind that the trial Judge had an added advantage of watching demeanour of prosecution witi1esses and, therefore, the inferences drawn and conclusion arrived at by the trial Judge ought to be accepted, even if a different view can be taken. But, if the view of the trial Judge is not reasonably possible and it suffers from material irregularity, manifest error or illegality, the appellate Court would be justified in disturbing the finding of the trial Court. It will be wrong to say that appellate Court has no powers to reassess the prosecution evidence and arrive at different conclusions. It can go into all question of fact and law and reach its own conclusion. However, in reversing a judgment of acquittal it requires to pay due regard to all the reasons given by the Sessions Judge for disbelieving a particular witness. It can go into all question of fact and law and reach its own conclusion. However, in reversing a judgment of acquittal it requires to pay due regard to all the reasons given by the Sessions Judge for disbelieving a particular witness. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in case of Labh Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 83 , held: "It is now well-settled that the powers of the High Court .... While hearing an appeal against an acquittal are as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a conviction. It has full power to reappraise the entire evidence upon which the order of acquittal was based and to reach its own conclusion. But before reversing an order of acquittal it should endeavour to displace or dispel in a general or specific way the primary reasoning of the trial Court upon which the acquittal is founded, paying due regard and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses and the value of their evidence; (2) the initial presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by his acquittal at the trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses." This Court in case of State of MP. v. Sneikh Lallu & ors. [(l990)2 Crimes 190 M.P.], held: "There is no difference between the ambit and scope of an appeal from • conviction and an appeal against acquittal. Under the circumstances, even though the High Court would not substitute its view on the evidence and accept the view of the trial Court if two views are possible, yet, if the view taken by the trial Court is unreasonable, perverse or unsustainable in law, the High Court would interfere in the order of the trial Court." 8. Now in the light of above guidelines we shall examine the evidence on record. The prosecution examined complainant Chand Khan (P.W. I), his father Majid Khan (P.W. 4), mother Sugra Bi (P.W. 7), wife Nafisa Bi (P.W. 8), sister Kubrabi (P.W. 10), brother Rais Khan (P.W. 9) and Jahangir Khan (P.W. 3) as eye-witnesses. Now in the light of above guidelines we shall examine the evidence on record. The prosecution examined complainant Chand Khan (P.W. I), his father Majid Khan (P.W. 4), mother Sugra Bi (P.W. 7), wife Nafisa Bi (P.W. 8), sister Kubrabi (P.W. 10), brother Rais Khan (P.W. 9) and Jahangir Khan (P.W. 3) as eye-witnesses. It is true that these witnesses are near relations of the deceased Hamid Khan and Jahangir Khan (P.W. 3) is brother of the deceased Babu Khan and there is long standing enmity between the group of complainant Chand Khan's father Majid Khan Patel, and respondent Asraf and his brothers Jahangir Khan, Aras Khan, Balla Khan, Rashid Khan etc. who are sons of late Chhote Khan. Chand Khan, Majid Khan and other witnesses have admitted that Chhote Khan, father of respondents Asraf Khan, Jahangir, Keshar Khan, Aras Khan etc, was patel of the village Agarda. He was removed from this post and in his place, Majid Khan (P.W. 4) was appointed as village patel. The respondents also made application for removal of Majid Khan from this post. Some criminal and civil cases were also instituted by the respondents against the complainant party. It is, therefore, clear that there was long standing bitter enmity between these two parties. But on the ground of enmity and relationship, their evidence cannot be brushed aside as the near relations are the last persons to allow the real culprit escape and falsely implicate the innocent persons. But, where parties are at inimical terms, generally they try to inculpate, as many members of the opposite group, as possible. Under such circumstances, the Court has to be very careful and cautious in appreciating evidence of such witnesses. 9. It has come in the evidence of Chand Khan (P.W. 1) that on the date of incident i.e. 11.7.84 he was sitting in his room alongwith Jahangir (P.W. 3), deceased Babu Khan and his brother Hamid Khan and were going to have their meals His father Majid Khan was also present in his separate room. He stated that at about 7 p.m. one Korku came and told them that about 10-15 persons armed with lathis were sitting on a culvert. After sometime, Asraf, Jahangir, Balla, Rashid, Gaffoor, Hannu, Aras, Aalam, Moti, Idu, Habbu, Rais, Habib, Sai Khan, Bhai Khan, Hardeo, Anokhi, Sakharam, Bhuriya, Jahib, Gutti, Gajanan etc. came to his house. He stated that at about 7 p.m. one Korku came and told them that about 10-15 persons armed with lathis were sitting on a culvert. After sometime, Asraf, Jahangir, Balla, Rashid, Gaffoor, Hannu, Aras, Aalam, Moti, Idu, Habbu, Rais, Habib, Sai Khan, Bhai Khan, Hardeo, Anokhi, Sakharam, Bhuriya, Jahib, Gutti, Gajanan etc. came to his house. Respondents Asraf, Jahangir and Balla were armed with Tangiya (small axe), Gafoor Khan with Karpa and Bhai Khan with Lohangi and some were armed with motorcycle-chains and some were having lathis with them. They came into the Court-yard of his house. Out of them 10 accused Asraf, Jahangir, Balla, Rais, Gafoor, Hannu, Aras, Jahangir, Man and Rashid entered his house. Asraf Khan hurled abuses and Jahangir Khan caught hold of Hamid Khan and dragged him out of his house and Asraf Khan and Balla gave him Tangiya-blows with its blunt side. Chand Khan deposed that the deceased Hamid Khan snatched someone's lathi and gave lathi-blows which landed on Asraf, Jahangir and Rashid Khan. He deposed that hearing cries, his father Majid Khan came out from his room. He was also dragged by respondent Rashid Khan and was also assaulted by Asraf, Balla, Rashid Khan, Gafoor, Hanpu, Aalam. When deceased Babu Khan and Jahangir (P.W. 3) also protested as to why they were beating them, the above 10 accused persons gave them Tangiya and lathi-blows. Hamid Khan, Babu Khan and Majid Khan became unconscious. Chand Khan deposed that his wife Nafisabi, mother Sugrabi, sister Kubrabi and brother Rais Khan also witnessed the incident. Jahangir Khan (P.W. 3), Majid Khan (P.W. 4), Sugrabi (P.W. 7), Nafisa bi (P.W 8), Rais Khan (P.W. 9) and Kubrabi (P.W. 10) supported the version of Chand Khan. After sometime Imrat Khan (P.W. 5), Kale Khan (P.W. 11) and Isub (P.W. 6) came to the house of Majid Khan. They saw the respondents going from the house of Chand Khan and they also caused injuries to them. 10. Some contradictions have occurred in the statement of these witnesses Chand Khan stated that 8-10 accused came in his house and Jahangir Khan dragged Hamid Khan out of his house and he and Balla gave him Iangiya-blows but in his police statement Ex. D.1 he mentioned that Jahangir, Balla and Asraf entered his house. 10. Some contradictions have occurred in the statement of these witnesses Chand Khan stated that 8-10 accused came in his house and Jahangir Khan dragged Hamid Khan out of his house and he and Balla gave him Iangiya-blows but in his police statement Ex. D.1 he mentioned that Jahangir, Balla and Asraf entered his house. According to Jahangir (P.W. 3), Jahangir and Balla came into the house and they alongwith Asraf assaulted Hamid Khan, Majid Khan, Sugrabi and Rais deposed that 8-10 accused came into their house and Jahangir and Balla dragged Hamid. According to Nafisabi, Jahangir, Balla and Asraf entered the house and attacked him. 11. According to Chand Khan, his father Majid and Babu Khan were beaten by 8-10 accused. But according to Jahangir Khan, (P.W. 3) respondents Jahangir and Asraf, according to Rais Khan Jahangir, Asraf and Balla, according to Majid, respondent Balla gave Tangiya-blows to Babu Khan. Majid Khan, Sugrabi and Nafisa; Majid Khan was dragged by Rashid Khan. According to Majid Khan and Sugrabi respondent Balla, according to Nafisabi, Balla and Jahangir, according to Rais, Balla, Jahangir and Asraf gave Tangiya-blows to Majid Khan. On the basis of contradiction entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded. Discrepancies occure even in the evidence of truthful witnesses because of natural difference in faculties of individuals, sometimes even truthful witnesses exaggerate their evidence. Under such circumstances, it is the duty of the Court to disengage the truth from false-hood and sift the grains from the chaff. The statement of Chand Khan has been corroborated by FIR Ex. P. 1 Medical evidence also supported the versions of these witnesses. Dr. Shresh Suryavanshi (P.W. 16) examined Hamid Khan, Babu Khan and Majid Khan and found 6 lacerated wounds and two contusions on the body of Hamid Khan vide report Ex. P. 78 and 11 lacerated wounds and 7 contusions on the person of Babu Khan vide report Ex. P. 79 and 2 lacerated wounds on the person of Majid Khan vide report Ex. P. 81 and one lacerated wound, one contusion and 2 abrasions on the person of Jahangir Khan vide report Ex. P. 82. Imrat Khan (P.W. 5), Yusuf Khan (P.W. 6) and Kale Khan (P.W. 11) found all these three persons injured at the house of Chand Khan. 12. P. 81 and one lacerated wound, one contusion and 2 abrasions on the person of Jahangir Khan vide report Ex. P. 82. Imrat Khan (P.W. 5), Yusuf Khan (P.W. 6) and Kale Khan (P.W. 11) found all these three persons injured at the house of Chand Khan. 12. The learned trial Judge committed error in discarding the evidence of Chand Khan on the ground that he did not witness the incident as his wife Nafisabi stated that he w1lS frightened and had hidden in the room. Chand Khan himself admitted this fact. But on this ground, it cannot be held that he was not in a position to see the incident. He was not cross-examined on this point nor was made any suggestion in this regard. From the statement of Rais Khan that only his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Nafisabi, his sister Kubrabi and his mother Sugrabi witnessed the incident, the learned trial Judge wrongly inferred that Chand Khan did not see the incident. This witness very clearly mentioned that before this incident, he, his brothers Chand Khan and Hamid Khan, father Majid Khan and Babu Khan and Jahangir Khan were present in the house. He further stated that after the incident he, his brother Chand Khan, Imrat Khan and Yusuf Khan took the injured to Khategaon in Naboo Bhai's bus. 13. The learned trial Judge further took an erroneous view that it was not safe to hold that Sugrabi, Nafisabi and Kubrabi were present and saw the incident. The presence of these ladies in their house was natural. It is true that Kale Khan (P.W. 11) stated that when he went to the house of Chand Khan, he saw the injured lying in the Court-yard, there was only Chand Khan and no others. From this sentence, it cannot be inferred that these house ladies were not present in their house. 14. It is true that all the witnesses stated that the respondents Jahangir Khan, Asraf Khan and Balla Khan caused injuries to the deceased Hamid Khan, Babu Khan and Majid Khan with Tangiya (small axe), but the injuries, f6und 6n the body of these persons, were lacerated wounds and contusions which could not be caused by sharp edged weapon like Tangiya and on this ground, learned trial Judge disbelieved the evidence of these witnesses holding that there was discrepancy in the occular and medical evidence. In our opinion, this view of the learned trial Judge is not acceptable. Chand Khan and Nafisabi very clearly stated that the respondents caused injuries with Mudhali (blunt) part of Tangiyas. As such, there was no discrepancy in occular and meidical evidence. Even otherwise, this incident took place at 7-7.15 p.m. under such circumstances. if witnesses could not see as to which part of Tangiya struck the injured It cannot be inferred that they did not see the incident 15. The learned trial Judge was also wrong in holding that the prosecution witnesses did not explain the injuries of the respondents, therefore, they are not reliable it is true that the four respondents were examined by Dr. Suresh Survavanshi on 12.7.84. Dr. Survavanshi found two lacerated wounds on the person of respondent Jahangir Khan, 2 lacerated wounds and 4 contusions with fracture of tibia on the body of Habib Khan and 3 lacerated wounds and 4 contusions on the person of Rashid Khan. Jahangir Khan (P.W. 3), Majid Khan (PW. 4), Sugrabi, Nafisabi, Rais Khan, Imrat Khan, Kale Khan did not explain injuries of the respondents. They stated that they did not see any injury on the person of these respondents. But P.W. 1 Chand Khan explained the injuries. He stated that when deceased Hamid Khan was dragged out, he snatched lathi from one of the assailants and gave blows to respondents Rashid Khan, Jahangir Khan and Asraf Khan. Shri Jaisingh, LC for the respondents, submitted that the injuries should have been explained in FIR or police statements; He put reliance on 1988 SCC (Cr) 401, State of Karnataka v. Shivappa Guru Siddappa & ors. This argument is not acceptable. The facts of the case of Shivappa arc quite different. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in case of Gururamsingh & another v. State of Punjab. Supp. (3) SCC 743, held: 7. xx xx xx xx "The obligation of the prosecution to give an explanation for the injuries sustained by an accused in a case of assault, if need by, comes only at the state of the trial and therefore absence of such explanation in the FIR would not by itself affect the prosecution case." In view of above, the evidence of these eye-witnesses cannot be doubted. 19. The learned trial Judge further committed error in holding that FIR Ex. 19. The learned trial Judge further committed error in holding that FIR Ex. P.1 was delayed by four hours and, therefore, it could not be used for corroboration of the prosecution evidence. The police station Khategaon is 4 1/2 Kms. may from the village Agarda where this occurrence took place. The incident took place at 7-7.15 p.m. and Ex. P. 1 was lodged at 11.00 p.m. Chand Khan explained that he did not bring the injured in bullock-cart as there was possibility of assault in the way, he, therefore, came to Khategaon by 10.30 p.m. in passenger bus of Naboo. In our opinion, the explanation is reasonable. The learned trial Judge wrongly rejected the same. The learned trial Judge further went wrong in holding that Chand Khan was informed by one Korku before the incident that some persons armed with lathis had gathered near culvert, even then the complainant party did not make preparation for their defence, therefore, the story was doubtful. It is clear from the evidence of Chand Khan that Korku Did not inform him that the persons assembled on the road were going to assault his brother and father. 20. The learned trial Judge wrongly disbelieved the evidence of Imrat Khan (P.W. 5). Yusuf Khan (P.W. 6), and Kale Khan (P.W. 11) on the ground that their houses were 1 k.m. away from the house of Chand Khan and, therefore, they could not hear the cry and alarm, raised by complainant party. According to lmrat Khan and Yusuf Khan their houses were 2 Furlongs and 1 1/2 Furlongs away respectively from the house of Chand Khan and as such the alarm raised by the complainant party could be heard by them It is true that Kale Khan, the father of Imrat Khan. But it can hardly be a ground for rejection of their evidence. 21. The learned trial Judge further committed grave error in holding that this incident occurred in the field of Keshar Khan, and not at the house of Chand Khan. 80th parties admitted that the incident took place at 7.15 p.m. and at one place. According to the complainant party, it occurred at the house of Chand Khan and according to the defence, it happened at the field of Keshar Khan. 80th parties admitted that the incident took place at 7.15 p.m. and at one place. According to the complainant party, it occurred at the house of Chand Khan and according to the defence, it happened at the field of Keshar Khan. All the eye-witnesses Chand Khan, Jahangir Khan, Majid Khan, Sugrabi, Nafisabi, Kubrabi and Rais Khan stated that the respondents came to the house of Chand Khan, dragged out Hamid Khan, Babu Khan and Majid Khan from the house and assaulted them with Tangiya and other weapons. Yusuf Khan, Kale Khan and Imrat Khan found all the three injured lying in front of the house of Chan Khan. Man Khan (P .W. 2) deposed that the earth in front of the house of Chand Khan was stained with blood. The Investigating officer Shivnarayan Singh Gaud (P.W. 18) prepared spot map Ex. P. 2 and collected blood-stained earth from in front of the house of Chand Khan vide memo Ex.P. 4. This earth was found containing human blood vide Serologist's report Ex. P 90. The learned trial Judge observed that the injured persons would have been brought from the field of Keshar Khan and put infront of their house, hence the earth was stained with human blood. There is no evidence that these 3 injured persons were brought from the field of Keshar Khan. Had this incident taken place in the field of Kehsar Khan, the earth of the place, in the field, where they were lying injured would have been stained with their blood. But no blood stained earth was found there. In spot map Ex. P. 2, it has been mentioned that the outer wall of the house of Majid Khan was stained with blood The Investigating officer proved Ex. P 87, the photographs and negatives of the house of Chand Khan. This statement has not been challenged in cross-examination. The photographs show that shoes and Chappals were scattered here and there. This also shows that the incident took place there According to the complainant party, the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence leaving 3 cycles on the post. These cycles are visible in the photographs. Shivnarayan Singh Gaud seized these cycles vide seizure memo Ex. P. 5. Man Khan (P.W. 2) supported the statement of Investigating officer. He said that on one of the cycles, something, like "Hanif Khan" was painted. These cycles are visible in the photographs. Shivnarayan Singh Gaud seized these cycles vide seizure memo Ex. P. 5. Man Khan (P.W. 2) supported the statement of Investigating officer. He said that on one of the cycles, something, like "Hanif Khan" was painted. Rais Khan (P.W. 9), Yusuf Khan @ Isub (P.W. 6) and Imrat Khan (P.W 5) also supported this statement and stated that on one of the cycles the name of Hanif Khan was painted. This statement of these witnesses has not been challenged in cross-examination, therefore, no reason to disbelieve the same. The learned trial Judge was wrong in disbelieving Man Khan on the ground that his uncle's son was going to be married with the daughter of Chand Khan. 21-A. The defence story is that the respondents-Asraf Khan, Jahangir Khan, Habib Khan, Rashid Khan and Hanif Khan, while returning from Khategaon, reached the field of Keshar Khan, the complainant party of 17 members, including Majid Khan Patel, deceased Hamid Khan and Babu Khan armed with lathis, lohangi and Tangiyas attacked them, they exercised their right of private defence of their body and in doing so the deceased and Majid Khan were injured. The defence story is improbable. Majid Khan was aged about 75 years, as he stated in Court. He had got young brothers, sons and grand-sons. It does not stand to reason that he himself would go to the field of Keshar Khan for assaulting the respondents. It has been proved that he was caused injuries. The respondents have not shown the presence of Jahangir Khan (P.W. 3) in field of Keshar Khan. He was present in the house of Chand Khan and Dr. Survavanshi found one lacerated wound one contusion and two abrasions on his body. These facts also prove that this incident took place at the house of Chand Khan where they were caused injuries. The learned trial Judge committed error in holding that the incident took place in the field of Keshar Khan. 22. The learned trial Judge wrongly held that the complainant party attacked the respondents in the field of Keshar Khan and the respondents in exercise of right of private defence of body, caused injuries. As stated above this incident took place at the house of Chand Khand. 22. The learned trial Judge wrongly held that the complainant party attacked the respondents in the field of Keshar Khan and the respondents in exercise of right of private defence of body, caused injuries. As stated above this incident took place at the house of Chand Khand. The respondents came to the house of Chand Khan, armed with weapons entered his house, dragged out Hamid Khan and Babu Khan and assaulted them and caused injuries, as a result of which they died. It is true, as stated above, respondent Asraf Khan had 3 lacerated wounds, Jahangir Khan had two lacerated wounds and Habib Khan had 6 injuries of blunt weapons with fracture of tibia and Rashid Khan had such 7 injuries. But on the basis of these injuries, it cannot be held that the respondents had right of private defence. From the above, it is clear that the respondents were aggressor and aggressor does not have right of private defence. 23. Lastly it was argued that the complainant Chand Khan lodged false report against 27 accused. The trial Court found that there was no evidence at all against 17 accused persons. The trial Court discussed evidence only against 10 accused Asraf Khan, Balla Khan, Rashid Khan, Hannu Khan, Jahangir Khan, Gafoor Khan, Aras Khan. Hatam, Gaffor Khan, Man Khan and Rais Khan and this Court granted leave to appeal against only 8 accused-Asraf Khan, Balla Khan, Rashid Khan, Hannu Khan, Aaras Khan, Man Khan, Jahangir Khan and Gafoor Khan, material contradictions and omissions have occurred regarding these 8 respondents also, therefore, the entire evidence of these witnesses should be discarded. We are unable to agree with this argument. Merely the witnesses are disbelieved with regard to complicity of same accused, their evidence cannot be rejected as to the complicity of other accused The principle of "Falsus in uno Falsus in omnibus" is not applicable to criminal trials as in majority of cases, there is admixture of untruth in the statement of witnesses, therefore, it is the duty of the Court to disengage the truth from falsehood and sift the grain from chaff. In this case, we have carefully scrutinized the prosecution evidence. We find that all the witnesses are consistent about the complicity of respondents Asraf Khan, Jahangir Khan, Balla Khan and Rashid Khan and it has been proved that they entered the house of Chand Khan. In this case, we have carefully scrutinized the prosecution evidence. We find that all the witnesses are consistent about the complicity of respondents Asraf Khan, Jahangir Khan, Balla Khan and Rashid Khan and it has been proved that they entered the house of Chand Khan. Asraf, Jahangir and Balla Khan dragged out Hamid and caused him Tangiya blows. When Babu Khan tried to intervene, they also assaulted him and inflicted injuries on his body and Rashid Khan dragged out Majid Khan and Balla Khan caused him injuries. As such from the prosecution evidence, it has been established that these respondents had formed common intention to cause death of Hamid Khan and Babu Khan and cause injuries to Majid Khan and in furtherance of this common intention. Asraf, Jahangir and Balla Khan dragged out Hamid Khan and caused injuries to Hamid Khan and Babu Khan with their respective weapons which resulted in their death and Rashid Khan dragged out Majid Khan; and Balla Khan caused him injuries. In view of above, offences u/Ss. 452, 302/34 and 323/34 of the IPC have been proved against these respondents beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Judge committed grave error in acquitting these respondents. The view of the trial Judge is manifestly wrong, unreasonable and unsustainable in law. It has caused miscarriage of justice. Killers have been acquitted and injured convicted. 23-A. No offences against respondents Gafoor, Hannu @ Hanif Khan, Man Khan, and Aras Khan have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 24. In Cr Appeal No. 500/91 (S.T. No. 19/88), the learned trial Judge put reliance on the testimony of respondents Hanif Khan (P.W. I), Jahangir (PW. 2), Asraf Khan (P.W. 3), Rashid Khan (P.W. 4), Habib Khan (P.W. 5) and Balla Khan (P.W. 6) (respondents in Cr. A. No. 105/92) wherein they deposed that when Hanif Khan, Rashid Khan, Habib and Asraf came in the field of Keshar Khan, 17 accused including Majid Khan, Chand Khan, deceased Hamid Khan and Babu Khan (member of complainant party of S.T. No. 118/84) attacked. The bare reading of the evidence of these witnesses leads us to the conclusion that false report was lodged by Hanif Khan to save themselves from the charge of murder of Hamid Khan and Babu Khan. The bare reading of the evidence of these witnesses leads us to the conclusion that false report was lodged by Hanif Khan to save themselves from the charge of murder of Hamid Khan and Babu Khan. Hanif Khan lodged FIR showing himself to be an eye-witness but Jahangir (P.W. 2), Asraf Khan (P.W 3), Rashid (P.W. 4) and Habib Khan (P.W. 5) did not state that Hanif Khan was also coming with them from Khategaon. Hanif Khan did not mention in FIR Ex. P.1 and his police statement Ex. D.1 that Asraf Khan P.W. 3) was present on the place of incident He also did not mention in Ex. D.1 as to who caused injuries and to whom. Had this incident taken place in Keshar Khan's field and the complainant party would have been aggressor this witness would not have omitted to mention the name of Asraf Khan who had sustained injuries. Balla Khan (P.W. 6) stated that he went to the field of Keshar Khan, hearing cries raised by Habib Khan, etc. but in his police statement Ex. P. 2 he mentioned that he was coming from Khategaon with Jahangir, and Asraf and when they reached Keshar Khan's field, they were attacked. He did not mention that Rashid and Hanif Khan also came with him. None of these witnesses stated that Balla Khan was also coming from Khategaon. This clearly shows that this report was falsely lodged by Hanif Khan to save themselves from the offence of murder. These witnesses stated that Chand Khan (P.W. 1) (in S.T. No.118/84) caused injuries to Asraf, Habib, Rashid Khan, etc. but name of Chand Khan does not find place in FIR Ex. P.1 and police statement Ex. D. 1 of Hanif Khan. As stated earlier, no blood was found on the place of incident Investigating officer Shivnarayan Gaud (P.W. 12) admitted that in investigation he found that false FIR was lodged by Hanif Khan and he did not file charge-sheet and submitted final report which was accepted by higher officers but later on a direction was issued for filing charge sheet and that was the reason why the challan was filed in the year 1988. As stated earlier, Asraf Khan had 3 lacerated wounds, Jahangir Khan had 2 lacerated wounds, Habib Khan had 2 lacerated wounds and 4 contusions with fracture of tibia and Rashid Khan had 3 lacerated wounds and 4 contusions as deposed by Dr. Suryavanshi and naturally these injuries were caused in the incident at the house of Chand Khan. As mentioned earlier, Chand Khan has deposed that the deceased Hamid Khan had snatched some weapon from one of the assaulants and caused injuries to these persons. The respondents inflicted injuries to Hamid and Babu Khan which resulted in their death. Majid Khan also sustained injuries. Under such circumstances, the complainant party had right to cause injuries to the respondents who were aggressor. Asraf Khan, Rashid, Jahangir sustained simple injuries. Only Habib Khan suffered fracture of tibia. Looking to the nature and number of injuries, it cannot be said that the complainant party exceeded right of private defence and used more force than was necessary for saving their lives. In view of above, no offence u/Ss. 148, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC is made out and they deserve acquittal. 25. In the result, Cr. Appeal No. 105/92 is party allowed. The judgment of acquittal of respondents Asraf Khan, Jahangir Khan, Balla Khan and Rashid Khari is set-aside and instead they are convicted for offences u/Ss. 302/34 and 323/34 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and one year's R.1, respectively. The respondents Asraf Khan, Jahangir Khan and Balla Khan are also convicted u/S. 452 of the IPC and sentenced to 5 years' R.1. No. charge u/S. 452 of the IPC was framed against respondent Rashid Khan, therefore, he is not convicted under this Section. Jail sentences shall run concurrently. Acquittal of respondents Gafoor Khan, Hannu alias Hanif Khan, Man Khan, and Aras Khan is confirmed. Their bail-bonds are discharged. 26. Cr. Appeal No. 500/91 is also allowed. The appellants arc acquitted of the offences u/Ss. 148, 325/149 and 323/149 IPC. Their bail-bonds are discharged. If fine paid, it be returned to them. Cr. Rev. No. 368/91 is dismissed as not pressed.