JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Nathu Ram, Hira Lal sons of Chaman Lal, Jagdish, Leela Ram sons of Nathu Ram and Chaman Lal have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide impugned judgment dated 11.5.1991 as under :- Nathu Ram and Hira Lal under section 307 Indian Penal Code substantively RI for five years each and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year each. Jagdish, Leela and Chaman Lal U/s 307/34 Indian Penal Code RI for four years each and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one years each. Leela under section 325 Indian Penal Code substantively RI for three years. Nathu Ram, Hira Lal, Jagdish and Chaman Lal under section 325/34 Indian Penal Code RI for three years. Jagdish under section 324 Indian Penal Code substantively RI for two years. Nathu Ram, Hira Lal, Leela Ram and Chaman Lal under section 324/34 Indian Penal Code RI for two years. Chaman Lal under section 323 Indian Penal Code substantively RI for one year. Nathu Ram, Hira Lal, Jagdish and Leela Ram under section 323/34 Indian Penal Code RI for one year. All the sentences are, however, ordered to run currently. 2. To avoid any confusion, it may be made clear that there is another Jagdish son of Kashi Ram (PW6) injured from the complainant side. 3. The present case was registered on the statement of Mani Ram PW5 made to the police to the effect that he used to cultivate the land in village Shekhpuria and near to his field there is a field of Dalip son of Jai Lal. Ravi Dutt and Jagdish had also taken the land of one Jagdish son of Kashi Ram for cultivation. When on 24.3.1988, Jagdish and Ravi Dutt were cutting the sarson crop on the land which they had taken for cultivation at about 1 PM, Chaman Lal appellant came there with herd of sheep and goats. An altercation ensued between both the sides and Chaman Lal said that he would let the complainant side know the consequences of taking out the herd and then he went to the village. After one hour all the five appellants came there. An altercation ensued between both the sides and Chaman Lal said that he would let the complainant side know the consequences of taking out the herd and then he went to the village. After one hour all the five appellants came there. Nathu Ram, Hira Lal and Jagdish appellants were armed with gandasis whereas Chaman Lal and Leela Ram were armed with lathis. Chaman Lal allegedly raised a lalkara that they (complainant side) be taught a lesson for taking out their herd of sheeps and goats. In the meantime Sant Lal had also reached there. It is then the case of the prosecution that Nathu Ram and Hira Lal had inflicted gandasi blows to Jagdish which hit on his head. When Ravi Dutt tried to intervene, Chaman Lal gave lahti blows which hit on his fore head and right wrist. Ravi Dutt fell on the ground. When Mani Ram complainant tried to intervene Leela Ram gave a lathi blow on his right thumb. Jagdish who was armed with a gandasi gave a gandasi blow to Sant Lal on the fingers of his right hand. It is further the case of the prosecution that Jagdish and Ravi Dutt PWs and snatched the gandasies from Nathu Ram and Hira Lal and inflicted injuries in self defence. On hearing alarm, Prem Chand and Madan Lal reached the spot and thereafter the appellants left the place of occurrence leaving two gandasies there. The injured were taken to hospital where they were medically examined by the concerned doctors. Statement of Mani Ram Ex. PL was recorded on 25.3.1988 in the General Hospital, Sirsa and on the basis of the same formal FIR Ex. PL/B was recorded in the concerned police station initially under sections 324, 323, 148 and 149 Indian Penal Code but subsequently after the medical opinion and the X-ray examination, sections 307 and 325 Indian Penal Code were added. 4. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was submitted against the present appellants. They were consequently charged under sections 307/325/324/323 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code. 5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined as many as 16 witnesses. PW1 is Dr. N.K. Sharma, who had operated upon Jagdish on 28.3.1988 and gave report Ex. PG. Dr. Sharma also made the statement that he had sent information to the police. PW2 is Dr. 5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined as many as 16 witnesses. PW1 is Dr. N.K. Sharma, who had operated upon Jagdish on 28.3.1988 and gave report Ex. PG. Dr. Sharma also made the statement that he had sent information to the police. PW2 is Dr. Gurtej Singh who had conducted X-ray examination on the persons of Mani Ram, Ravi Dutt and Jagdish and proved their X-ray reports Ex. PF, Ex. PG and Ex. PH. PW3 Dr. Jag Mohan had radiogically examined one Jagdish son of Kanshi Ram and found fracture of night frontal parietal region and proved his X-ray report Ex. PJ. PW4 is Dr. Dharam Paul, who is Medical Record Officer and proved report of X-ray Ex. PK PW5 Mani Ram, PW6 Jagdish, PW7 Sant Lal and PW8 Ravi Dutt are the injured witnesses and they deposed in support of the prosecution case. PW9 is Rajbir Singh Sub Inspector/SHO, who on 27.5.88 had obtained the warrants of arrest from the court of Ilaqa Magistrate by moving an application. PW10 Bhoop Singh Patwari had visited the spot and prepared site plan which is Ex. PM with correct marginal notes. PW11 Head Constable Charan Singh had moved applications on 24.3.88, Ex. PN, Ex. PO and Ex. PP to the Medical Officer of the General Hospital, Sirsa with regard to Mani Ram, Ravi Dutt and Jagdish injured to know if they are fit to make statement or not and he had obtained opinion of the doctor to the effect that they were unfit to make statement, which are Ex. PN/1, Ex. PO/1 and Ex. PP/1. PW12 Assistant Sub Inspector Ram Bilas had re- arrested the appellants in this case and on 31.7.88 had got the scaled site plan prepared from Patwari Bhoop Singh. PW13 is Constable Ram Rikh, who is witness of the recovery of gandasi Ex. P3 and lathi Ex. P4. PW14 Head Constable Ram Diyal had partly investigated the case and PW15 Head Constable Jai Singh also made part investigation of this case. PW16 is Dr. Suresh Kumar who had medically examined Jagdish, Ravi Dutt Mani Ram, Sant Lal, Hira Lal. 6. Out of the present five appellants, Nathu Ram, Chaman Lal and Hira Lal have infact admitted their presence whereas other two appellants denied their participation. PW16 is Dr. Suresh Kumar who had medically examined Jagdish, Ravi Dutt Mani Ram, Sant Lal, Hira Lal. 6. Out of the present five appellants, Nathu Ram, Chaman Lal and Hira Lal have infact admitted their presence whereas other two appellants denied their participation. The plea taken by Nathu Ram appellant is that in fact on 24.3.88 he alongwith his father Chaman Lal and brother Hira Lal were going through a path for grazing the herd of sheep and goats when Mani Ram complainant and Sant Lal had prevented them. It is then pleaded that 2/3 sheep had incidently entered the fields of Jagdish PW and this resulted into an altercation whereupon Sant Lal etc. had caused injuries to him and Hira Lal and they had also caused injuries to the complainant side in their self defence. However no evidence was adduced by the appellants. 7. After examining the entire evidence, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the present appellants as indicated above. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction, they have preferred the present appeal. 8. I have heard Mr. G.S. Bawa, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Bijender Dhankar, learned Assistant Advocate General Haryana. With their assistance I have also gone through the entire record. 9. Mr. Bawa contends that the story of the prosecution as projected by the complainant side is not trustworthy on the face of it and the complainant side in fact has twisted the real facts by suppressing the genesis of the fight as they were the aggressor and had opened the assault on the appellants in which Hira Lal and Nathu Ram appellants have received multiple injuries at the hands of the complainant party and out of these injuries certain injuries have been caused by sharp edged weapon and consequently declared grievous. The learned counsel then contends that the explanation put forth by the prosecution regarding the injuries on Hira Lal and Nathu Ram appellants does not stand the test of reasoning and this fact alone is enough to throw the case of the prosecution in its entirety. 10. The learned counsel then contends that the explanation put forth by the prosecution regarding the injuries on Hira Lal and Nathu Ram appellants does not stand the test of reasoning and this fact alone is enough to throw the case of the prosecution in its entirety. 10. The learned counsel further contended that the investigation in the present case is also tainted one from the very beginning, in so much so that inspite of the fact that the injured from both the side were examined by one doctor at the same time and all the ruqas were also received in police station City Sirsa at one stage, the police has intentionally not recorded the statement of Hira Lal and Nathu Ram in the hospital. This shows that the police was hand in gloves with the complainant side and for this reason the present case was foisted upon the appellants; in this eventuality the defence as projected by the appellants become most probable and they deserve acquittal. 11. Mr. Bawa further submits that even otherwise, the present case does not fall within the ambit of section 307 Indian Penal Code for the reason that there is no categorical statement of the concerned doctor to the effect that injury on the person of Jagdish was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature but for timely aid. He then contends that Dr. N.K. Sharma PW1 who had examined Jagdish in the hospital had opined that injury No. 1 could be and could not be dangerous to life and this medical evidence would at the most attract section 326 Indian Penal Code only. In support of his arguments he had relied upon Gurjant Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983(1) RCR 319 and Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(2) RCR 371. In the same breath the learned counsel then contends that even 326 Indian Penal Code is not made out. Nathu Ram and Hira Lal appellants have been convicted substantively under section 307 Indian Penal Code for causing one injury each to Jagdish PW whereas Dr. Suresh Kumar (PW16) has declared injury No. 2 on the person of Jagdish as simple. In the same breath the learned counsel then contends that even 326 Indian Penal Code is not made out. Nathu Ram and Hira Lal appellants have been convicted substantively under section 307 Indian Penal Code for causing one injury each to Jagdish PW whereas Dr. Suresh Kumar (PW16) has declared injury No. 2 on the person of Jagdish as simple. The case of the prosecution is that Nathu Ram and Hira Lal who were armed with gandasies gave one injury each on the head of Jagdish and when it is not known as to who has caused injury No. 1 (subsequently declared dangerous to life), the offence at the most would fall under section 324 Indian Penal Code only. 12. Mr. Dhankar, the learned State counsel has, however, refuted the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants and vehemently contends that the case of the prosecution is proved to the hilt. He then submits that in the present case four persons have received as many as six injuries at the hands of the appellants. One of the injury on the person of Jagdish injured had been declared dangerous to life attracting section 307 Indian Penal Code and as such they are liable to be convicted for the charges framed against them. 13. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides and going through the entire evidence, I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the present appellants to the hilt and they deserve acquittal. My reasoning for arriving at the said conclusion is set out as under :- 14. From the side of the complainant Jagdish, Mani Ram, Ravi Dutt and Sant Lal have received injuries. They have also stepped into witness box. From the side of the appellants Nathu Ram and Hira Lal are injured. All the injured were examined at the same time by Dr. Suresh Kumar PW16. Focusing on the injuries of both the side, in my view, is very essential. 15. PW6 Jagdish son of Kanshi Ram has received the following injuries on his person :- 1. An incised wound of 14 cm x 1.5 cm bone deep over the front of the parietal areas of right side. Fresh bleeding was present. Wound is 11.5 cm from the right pinna towards the mid line. Advised for X-ray. 2. 15. PW6 Jagdish son of Kanshi Ram has received the following injuries on his person :- 1. An incised wound of 14 cm x 1.5 cm bone deep over the front of the parietal areas of right side. Fresh bleeding was present. Wound is 11.5 cm from the right pinna towards the mid line. Advised for X-ray. 2. Incised wound of 12 cm x 2 cm bone deep and curved shape in the front of parietal area in the mid line, starting from 5.5 cm above the eye brow. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised for X-ray. 16. Injury No. 1 has been declared as dangerous to life whereas injury No. 2 was found to be simple in nature. 17. PW8 Ravi Dutt has received the following injuries :- 1. There was incised wound of 11 cm x 2 cm over the parietal bone of the left side, 1 cm from the mid line towards the left side. Wound is starting from 7 cm from the medial end of the left eye brow. The wound is bone deep. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray was advised. 2. There was contusion of 13 cm x 2 cm on the dorsal aspect of right forearm. Red in colour. Both the injuries were simple in nature. 18. PW5 Mani Ram son of Kanshi Ram has received the following injury :- 1. There was red contusion of 3 cm x 2 cm on the base of the right thumb on dorsel aspect. X-ray was advised. 19. This injury was caused by blunt weapon and after examination it was declared grievous. 20. PW7 Sant Lal has received the following one injury on his person :- 1. An incised wound of 5 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm starting from lateral surface of proximal interphalangeal joint going upwards into the interphalangeal left of ring and the middle phalanx of right side. Fresh bleeding was present. This injury was declared simple in nature. 21. Injuries on the person of Jagdish are attributed to Nathu Ram and Hira Lal; injury on the person of Mani Ram is attributed to Lila. Injuries on the person of Ravi Dutt are attributed to Chaman Lal whereas injury on the person of Sant Lal is attributed to Jagdish. 22. On the other hand, Hira Lal appellant has received the following injuries on his person:- 1. Injuries on the person of Ravi Dutt are attributed to Chaman Lal whereas injury on the person of Sant Lal is attributed to Jagdish. 22. On the other hand, Hira Lal appellant has received the following injuries on his person:- 1. There was an incised wound of 7.5 cm x 1 cm bone deep over the right parietal area slightly horizontally placed. Wound is 9.5 cm from right pinna. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray was advised. 2. There was lacerated wound 6 cm x 1.5 cm in the mid line over the scalp, 8 cm from the root of the nose. Wound was bone deep and fresh bleeding was present. X-ray was advised. 3. Abrasion of 1 cm x 1.5 cm over the dorsem of proximal interphalangeal joint of right index finger. Fresh blood was oozing. X-ray was advised. 4. Red contusion of 3 cm x 2 cm over the top of left shoulder. 3. Injury No. 1 after X-ray examination was declared grievous. 24. Nathu Ram appellant has received the following injuries on his person :- 1. There was lacerated wound of 3 cm x 2 cm on the left parietal bone. Wound is 11 cm from root of the nose. Wound was 0.5 cm deep and 1 cm towards the left side from the mid line. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray was advised. 2. Lacerated wound of 6 cm x 0.5 cm bone deep horizontally placed over the right parietal area, 10 cm from the right pinna. Fresh bleeding was present and X-ray was advised. 3. Red contusion of 12 cm x 2 cm over the anterior axillery line on right chest, 3 cm below the anterior axillery fold, X-ray was advised. 4. Red contusion of 5 cm x 2 cm on the front of left thigh. 14 cm above the knee joint. 5. Red contusion of 6 cm x 1 cm over the front of left thigh, 7 cm above the injury No. 4. 6. Incised wound of 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the back side of the chest towards right side, 13 cm from middle line over the upper border of right scapula. There was corresponding cut present in the kurta worn by him. 7. Red contusion or 5 cm x 2 cm on the back of the right chest, 5 cm below the injury No. 6. 25. There was corresponding cut present in the kurta worn by him. 7. Red contusion or 5 cm x 2 cm on the back of the right chest, 5 cm below the injury No. 6. 25. After X-ray examination, 5th and 6th ribs of right side were found fractured (grievous injury). 26. The above depicted chart of the injuries shows that from the side of the complainant, four persons have received six injuries and from the side of the present appellants, Hira Lal and Nathu Ram have received as many as 11 injuries. The injuries are by different weapons (sharp and blunt). 27. Let us appreciate the case of the prosecution in the light of the injuries received by both the sides and the explanation being brought forward by the complainant party in respect of the injuries received by the appellants. 28. All the four injured witnesses of the complainant side namely Mani Ram, Jagdish, Sant Lal and Ravi Dutt have started on oath that Jagdish and Ravi Dutt have snatched gandasies from Nathu Ram and Hira Lal appellant and have caused injuries in their self defence. Case of the complainant further is that Ravi Dutt had fallen on the ground after the receipt of the injuries. Jagdish has also received two injuries at the hands of Hira Lal and Nathu Ram. The sequence is that Nathu Ram and Hira Lal had given one injury each on the head of Jagdish and when Ravi Dutt had intervened, he was also assaulted and consequently he had fallen down. It is not possible that Ravi Dutt who had fallen on the ground and Jagdish who had received two injuries on his head could be in a position to snatch two gandasies from the hands of Hira Lal and Nathu Ram appellants and cause 11 injuries (sharp and blunt) to them. In my view, the genesis of fight is being suppressed by the prosecution and the only inference which can possibly be drawn is that the defence set up by the appellants becomes more probable. On the other hand, the injuries received by the appellant side, in fact are in consonance with the probability of the defence. 29. In my view, the genesis of fight is being suppressed by the prosecution and the only inference which can possibly be drawn is that the defence set up by the appellants becomes more probable. On the other hand, the injuries received by the appellant side, in fact are in consonance with the probability of the defence. 29. Having regard to the nature and multiplicity of the injuries received by the accused as compared with those by the complainant, it is quite probable that the complainants were the aggressor and the appellants have acted in exercise of fight of their defence as contended by them. 30. At the same time, I would not refrain from saying that the police has not been fair in its investigation. Inspite of the fact that Hira Lal and Nathu Ram have received many injuries and they were also admitted in the hospital at the same stage, their statements were not recorded by the concerned police. PW14 HC Ram Diya has categorically stated that all the six ruqas (four from complainant side and two from appellants side) were received simultaneously in the police station and thereafter he reached the General Hospital. He has also categorically stated that he did not record the statements of Nathu Ram and Hira Lal. The explanation given is that when he reached the hospital, they were not fit to make statements. PW15 HC Jai Singh who has also partly investigated the present case has also categorically stated that he had come to know that the accused had also received injuries but he had not conducted the investigation of the case from the angle. The fact remains that no statement from the side of the injured appellants was even recorded by the prosecution agency. This all indicates that the investigation is not at all fair in this case. This fact also dents the prosecution case from its core. 31. I am of the view that the approach adopted by the learned trial court in convicting the appellants is not correct and as such they deserve acquittal. 32. Since I have disbelieved the prosecution story in toto, I do not feel the necessity of meeting the other argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to diluting the gravity of defence from section 307 Indian Penal Code to a lesser one. 33. 32. Since I have disbelieved the prosecution story in toto, I do not feel the necessity of meeting the other argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to diluting the gravity of defence from section 307 Indian Penal Code to a lesser one. 33. In the sequel of the abovesaid discussion, the net outcome is that there is no reliable evidence to support the conviction of the appellants and the prosecution must be held to have failed to establish the charges against the appellants. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. All the appellants are discharged of the bail bonds executed by them during the pendency of present appeal. Appeal allowed.