JUDGMENT 1. - Rama Harijan, through this appeal, has called in question the judgment dated 30.2.1982 of the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara convicting him under Section 324 IPC and sentencing to three months R.l. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. 2. The case relates to an occurrence which took place on 28.10.1978 in village Survaniya. In the FIR Ex. P-1, lodged by Shiv Shanker, RW. 1 on 29.10.1978 it was stated that on 28.10.1978 at about 7 p.m. when the villagers had collected at Ram Temple and were enquiring about the theft of silver 'Mukut' of the deity, the accused took out the sword and inflicted injuries to Hameng, Kachru and Ranchhore. On this report, a case under Section 307 IPC was registered. After usual investigation, the police submitted a challan. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge under Section 307 IPC. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Shiv Shanker, RW. 2 Hameng, P.W. 3 Kachrulal, RW. 4 Ranchhore, P.W. 5 Kodarlal, PW. 6 Nathu, P.W. 7 Kachra, P.W. 8 Bhemji, RW. 9 Balkrishan, RW. 10 Dr. Z.N. Ansari and P.W. 11 Chhogalal. Accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC. denied accusation. His case was that the members of the complainant party had gone to his house in the evening and pelted stones at him accusing him of committing theft of the 'Mukut' and they entered in his house and gave beating to him and Shanker came to his rescue. He examined DW. 1 Chapla and DW. 2 Shanker in his defence. 3. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties held that the allegation that the accused had caused injuries to Hameng, Kachru and Ranchhore were fully established. He further hold that the act of the accused did not travel beyond Section 324 IPC. He, therefore, convicting the appellant under Section 324 IPC, sentenced him as stated above. 4. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that by the evidence on record, it is established that in the occurrence the accused had sustained as many as 14 injuries, Pointing out that the prosecution has not examined the injuries of the accused, he argued that the defence version should be accepted and the appellant should be acquitted. 5. The learned PP, on the other hand, tried to support the judgment of the Trial Court. 6. 5. The learned PP, on the other hand, tried to support the judgment of the Trial Court. 6. I have gone through the entire evidence produced in the case, Hameng PW. 2, Kachrulal, RW. 3 and Ranchhore RW. 4 are the injured persons. They depose that the accused had caused injuries to them. Shiv Shanker, RW. 1, Kodarlal, P.W. 5, Nathu, RW. 6 Kachra, RW. 7 and Balkrishan, RW. 9 also depose that the accused had caused injuries to Hameng, Kachru and Ranchhore. A suggestion, put to the witness in the cross-examination of the witness that the injuries had been caused by one Govind, was denied by them. However, the presence of Govind at the place of occurrence is borne out by the statement of Nathu, RW. 6. Be that as it may, by the mere presence of Govind it cannot be presumed that he had caused injuries to Hameng, Kachru and Ranchhore. It cannot be believed that the prosecution witnesses would leave the real culprit and implicate the accused in the case. It is thus amply proved that the three persons had suffered injuries at the hands of the accused. 7. Now it is to be seen whether a right of defence had accrued to the accused to cause injuries to Hameng, Kachru and Ranchhore. A certified copy of the injury report of the accused has been placed on record. This injury report has been admitted by the A.PP. It is thus clear that genuineness of the document has not been disputed by the prosecution. The injury report indicates that as many as 14 injuries were sustained by the accused Rama, out of which two were lacerated wounds, one being on his parietal region. The injury report indicates that the accused was medically examined on 29.10.1978 at 11.30 a.m. by the same medical Officer who had examined the injuries of the prosecution witnesses. The Medical Officer has recorded a note on the injury report of the accused that the injuries, when seen were of the duration between 12 to 16 hours. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that the duration of the injuries of the accused fits in with the time of the alleged occurrence. 8. All the prosecution witnesses have been asked questions in their cross-examination that in the occurrence the accused had suffered injuries. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that the duration of the injuries of the accused fits in with the time of the alleged occurrence. 8. All the prosecution witnesses have been asked questions in their cross-examination that in the occurrence the accused had suffered injuries. They have also been asked that they were facing trial of a case filed against them in respect of the same occurrence. The witnesses, through have denied to have seen any injury on the person of the accused, have admitted that they were facing trial in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kushalgarh in respect of the same occurrence. The accused has proved certified copy of the FIR lodged by Sapna Harijan on 2.11.1978 stating that an occurrence had taken place in the evening of dated 29.10.1978 in which Rama was beaten by various persons, including the prosecution witnesses. Though wrong date of incident is mentioned in the FIR, yet in view of the fact that all the prosecution witnesses have admitted that they were facing trial in the Court of Magistrate, Kushalgarh in respect of the same occurrence, it is evident that Sapna had lodged the FIR for the occurrence of dated 28.10.1978. 9. It is relevant to state that the injury report of the accused is dated 29.10.1978 which was issued by the Medical Officer at 11.30 a.m. It is obvious that the FIR could not be of the occurrence of 29.10.1978 evening. There is obvious mistake in the date recorded in the FIR lodged by Sapna Harijan. The fact remains that in respect of the same occurrence the prosecution witnesses were facing trial. 10. The fact that the injury report of the accused has been admitted by the A.P.P. goes to prove that accused Rama has suffered 14 injuries in the alleged occurrence. The prosecution has not given any explanation of the injuries, rather the witnesses have suppressed the injuries of the accused, it is not a case whether the accused had suffered injuries of minor and negligible nature. As already stated, not only that he had suffered 14 injuries, two of them were lacerated wound. It is not the case for the prosecution that the accused had suffered those injuries when the witnesses attempted to apprehend him. As already stated, not only that he had suffered 14 injuries, two of them were lacerated wound. It is not the case for the prosecution that the accused had suffered those injuries when the witnesses attempted to apprehend him. The non-explanation of the injuries suffered by the accused, in the circumstances, leads us to infer that the prosecution witnesses are lying on most material fact. It is highly risky to uphold conviction of Rama on their testimony. 11. The defence version is more probable. The prosecution witnesses have not been able to state as to what was the cause that the accused had attacked the witnesses. The witnesses have admitted that the accused did not bear illwill against them. Therefore, there could not be any cause for the accused to have attacked the witnesses by sword. It is significant to point out that the witnesses do not say that somebody had made allegations against the accused that he had committed theft of the 'Mukut'. Therefore, there could not be any cause for the accused to be violent. There could not be any cause for him to have gone to the temple having sword in his hand when there was no history of enmity and there were no allegations against him of the theft. 12. On the other hand, the defence version appears to be probable that he did not go to the temple where the villagers had collected to find out as to who had committed theft of the 'Mukut' and therefore the prosecution witnesses and other persons went to his house and gave beating to him. It seems that the accused in order to defend himself used the sword when the witnesses entered into the house of the accused and assaulted him. In the circumstances, the accused had to cause, the injuries to the witnesses, it cannot be said that he had no right of private defence to cause injuries. It is significant to point out that the accused had caused only simple injuries to the three witnesses. Therefore, it cannot be said that he had exceeded the right of private defence available to him. 13. As a result of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused. The conviction of the appellant is not sustainable. 14. Consequently, the appeal succeeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that he had exceeded the right of private defence available to him. 13. As a result of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused. The conviction of the appellant is not sustainable. 14. Consequently, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of the Trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant is set aside. Appellant Rama is acquitted. He is on bail. He shall not surrender to the bail bonds.Appeal allowed. *******