Judgment Harjit Singh Bedi, J. 1. This appeal against acquittal arises out of the following facts :- Bishan Singh, PW-13 and some other members of the complainant party had their plots adjoining the phirni in village Rampur Kundal and these plots were being used for storing fuel wood etc. Suraj Bhan, accused, however, had his residence just across the phirni. On September, 10, 1999 Suraj Bhan had thrown away the fuel wood of Bishan Singh lying in the plot and had also abused him. Mangu, accused, Suraj Bhan, father had also filed a civil suit against Ram Chander, PW-15, Puran, Bhalle, Rampat (since deceased) and Bishan Singh, PW-13, seeking an injunction to restrain them from taking forcible possession of the said plot, which Mangu claimed to be his own. Bishan Singh and others had filed their written statement in the suit and the Civil Court at Sonepat had issued an order of status quo with regard to possession on March 19, 1989. On September 11, 1989, Dhan Kaur wife of Bishan Singh and Anguri wife of Ram Kumar had gone to the plot at about 7.30 a.m. for throwing the garbage when Gian Devi and Anguri both accused and wives of Kartar Singh and Suraj Bhan, accused respectively gave them a beating with lathis within the sight of Bishan Singh, Ram Kumar and Ram Chander, P.Ws. and Rampat deceased. In the meanwhile, Jai Bhagwan, PW also reached the spot. Suraj Bhan and Rajinder armed with a knife each, Kartar Singh with a Balam and Mangu, Surinder Singh, Daya Nand, Rambir and Jagbir armed with lathis also came there. Suraj Bhan shouted that Bishan Singh should be taught a lesson for encroaching upon the plot, on which Rajinder, accused gave a knife blow on the right side of the abdomen of Rampat and Suraj Bhan, accused gave two knife blows on Rampats right arm whereas Kartar Singh gave 4-5 balam blows to Rampat as a result of which, he fell down. Daya Nand and Jagbir also gave lathi blows on the head of Bishan Singh, Rambir gave a lathi blow on his left shoulder and Mangu accused gave a lathi blow on his left hand thumb, as a result of which Bishan Singh also fell on the ground. Surinder, accused also inflicted many lathi blows to Ram Kumar, PW, which he managed to ward off with his hands. Surinder, accused also inflicted many lathi blows to Ram Kumar, PW, which he managed to ward off with his hands. On an alarm mar dia mar dia raised by Bishan Singh, his sons Jagbir, Jagdish and Dilbagh, PWs. armed with lathis also reached the spot. Mangu and Daya Nand also gave injuries to them whereas Jagdish and Dilbagh also inflicted some injuries on the persons of the accused in self defence. All the injured members of the complainant party including Rampat (since deceased) were brought to the Kharkhoda hospital and were subsequently referred to the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak by Dr. S.C. Nawal, PW-14. He also sent a ruqa Ex.PKK to police station Kharkhoda with regard to their arrival and departure. On reaching the Medical College and Hospital, Dr. Sanjay Narula, PW-7 declared Rampat to be dead and also sent a ruqa to this effect to the Incharge, police post, Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. He also medico-legally examined Dhan Kaur and Bishan Singh and admitted them to the hospital as indoor patients. He also sent information with regard to this fact to the police post. On the receipt of the ruqa, Ex.PKK of Dr. S.C. Nawal of the Primary Health Centre, Kharkhoda, ASI Sube Singh, PW-18, reached the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak and moved an application Ex.PN before Dr. Hemant Kumar seeking his opinion as to whether Bishan Singh, PW-13 was fit to make his statement. On being given a reply in the affirmative, he recorded his statement Ex.PDD at about 2.45 p.m. on September 11, 1989 and on its basis the formal F.I.R. was registered at Police Station, Kharkhoda at 4.15 p.m.; with the special report being delivered to the Ilaqa Magistrate at 10.45 p.m. the same night. ASI Sube Singh also prepared the inquest proceedings pertaining to the dead body of Rampat and also made the necessary inquiries relevant to the investigation. 2. ASI Sube Singh also prepared the inquest proceedings pertaining to the dead body of Rampat and also made the necessary inquiries relevant to the investigation. 2. On the completion of the investigation, all the accused were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 323/149 IPC; Rambir accused under Section 325 IPC and the remaining accused under Sections 325/149 IPC; Surinder accused under Section 323 IPC and the remaining accused under Sections 323/149 IPC; Gian Devi under Section 323 IPC and the remaining accused under Sections 323/149 IPC and Anguri accused under Section 323 IPC and the remaining accused under Sections 323/149 IPC and as they pleaded not guilty, were brought to trial. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined 18 witnesses in all and also tendered into evidence certain documents. 4. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all the allegations levelled against them and stated that the occurrence had not taken place in the manner suggested by the prosecution. The presence of Ram Chander and Jai Bhagwan, PWs. was denied. Rambir, Surinder, Daya Nand and Jagbir pleaded alibis. Suraj Bhan, accused stated as under :- "I am innocent. Smt. Anguri and Smt. Gian Devi were preparing dung cakes in the Ghair/Gitwar owned by Mangu accused in the morning of the day of occurrence. Bishan Singh, Ram Pal, Ram Chander etc. wanted to take forcible possession of the ghair/gitwar stated above and Mangu accused had filed a civil suit against Ram Chander etc. and had obtained stay order. The case is still pending in the Court at Sonepat. On the day of occurrence Bishan Singh, Rampat (deceased), Ram Kumar, Jagbir, Dilbagh and Jagdish PWs armed with various weapons like lathi etc. came to the said plot and tried to take forcible possession thereof and also attempted to turn out Smt. Anguri and Smt. Gian Devi accused from the said plot. On hearing the noise, I, Mangu, Kartar Singh and Rajinder accused had reached the spot and when we tried to rescue Smt. Gian Devi and Smt. Anguri accused from the hands of the complainant party, they attacked us and inflicted injuries to us. In self-defence we lifted iron patri and sticks from the said plot and inflicted injuries to the above mentioned PWs and the deceased in our self- defence. In self-defence we lifted iron patri and sticks from the said plot and inflicted injuries to the above mentioned PWs and the deceased in our self- defence. Smt. Anguri and Dhan Kaur PWs had also reached the spot and they too had sustained injuries in the struggle. The occurrence didnt take place in the Phirni but inside the plot owned by us. The police didnt take any action on our report and instead involved us in this case falsely by introducing a wrong story because of the death of Rampat. Daya Nand, Jagbir, Surinder, Rambir accused were not present at the spot at that time and similarly Ram Chander and Jai Bhagwan PWs were also not present at the spot at the time of occurrence". 5. This plea was also adopted by Rajinder Singh, Kartar Singh, Mangu Ram, Anguri and Gian Devi, accused. Rajinder Singh also examined two witnesses in his defence. 6. The trial Court in the course of a very elaborate judgment came to the conclusion that from the evidence on record, it was clear that the dispute had arisen over the possession of the plot as the civil suit and the security proceedings inter se the parties are still pending. The Court also noted that two conflicting versions had come before it in the evidence and the defence version was that the injuries had been caused to the complainant party when they had tried to take forcible possession of the plot, in the possession of the accused. The Court accordingly examined the plea of self-defence that had been claimed by the accused and after enumerating the various principles that were to be kept in mind while determining as to whether the said plea was available or not, observed that it appeared that the complainant party was in fact the aggressor and that the accused had acted only in self-defence. The trial Court in this connection minutely examined the prosecution evidence taking note of the fact that the F.I.R. had been lodged after a delay of six hours, which had given ample time to the complainant party to evolve a false story. Elaborating this fact, the trial Court observed that the incident had taken place in village Rampur Kundal, 8 kms. away from the police station, Kharkhoda and the injured had reached the hospital at about 9.00 a.m. and though the ruqa sent by Dr. Elaborating this fact, the trial Court observed that the incident had taken place in village Rampur Kundal, 8 kms. away from the police station, Kharkhoda and the injured had reached the hospital at about 9.00 a.m. and though the ruqa sent by Dr. S.C. Nawal had reached the police station at 10.00 a.m. Bishan Singhs statement had been recorded much later. It was also observed that all the injured had not been sent to the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak but some had stayed behind in Kharkhoda and even at that stage the statement of the witnesses had not been recorded. The Court also found that the defence story that the incident had taken place not in the phirni, which intervened in between the plot and house of Suraj Bhan but in the plot in dispute itself was correct and the prosecution story was not worthy of belief. The Court also found that from the nature of injuries on the accused party and the fact that the complainant party had initially not even admitted that they had come armed with lathis on hearing the raula raised by Dhan Kaur and PW-16 Anguri wife of Ram Kumar, who were being belaboured by Gian Devi and Anguri, accused showed that the prosecution witnesses had much to hide; the implication of this finding being that the investigation had not been fair and that it had withheld the genesis of the incident. The Court finally observed that from the nature of the injuries on the accused party, it was clear that they had acted in the right of self-defence and the argument advanced by the prosecution that the right had been exceeded could be accepted merely because one man had been killed. The trial Court accordingly acquitted the accused of the charges. Hence this appeal at the instance of the State of Haryana. 7. We have heard the learned State counsel as also Sh. Baldev Singh, the learned Senior counsel, representing some of the respondents and have gone through the judgment impugned with their help. We are of the opinion that the trial Court has given very good reasons for making an order of acquittal. The evidence has been discussed threadbare by the trial Court in the course of an elaborate judgment. Baldev Singh, the learned Senior counsel, representing some of the respondents and have gone through the judgment impugned with their help. We are of the opinion that the trial Court has given very good reasons for making an order of acquittal. The evidence has been discussed threadbare by the trial Court in the course of an elaborate judgment. A positive finding had been recorded that the accused were in fact the victims of aggression by the other side and that they had caused the injuries to the complainant party in the right of their private defence. For arriving at this conclusion, the trial Court had held that the F.I.R. had been lodged belatedly and after due deliberations, the place of occurrence had been changed and the injuries received by the accused party had been suppressed and an attempt had been made to portray them as the aggressors. We also find that the prosecution witnesses were, in fact, at pains to under play their role in the incident and at the initial stage had even denied that they were carrying any weapons but later on stated that after they had been attracted to the place of incident, on the alarm raised by Bishan Singh, they had picked up some lathis, gone to his rescue and caused injuries with their weapons to the members of the accused party. This story is a clear improvement from the one given in the F.I.R. The Honble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) SCC 166 has laid down the principles under which interference ought to be made by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. It has been observed that interference would be justifiable only if the judgment was perverse and based on a misreading of the evidence and merely because the High Court was inclined to take a view different than the one taken by the trial Court on an appreciation of the fact, was not a ground for interference. Applying this principle to the case in hand, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for as the view taken by the trial Court is absolutely sound and calls for no interference. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.