This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16-6-1980 by which learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki convicted and sentenced the two appellants to four years R. I. under Section 307/34 of I. P. C. and six months R. I. under Sections 323/34 of I. P. C. 2. On 21-10-77 at 8. 35 a. m. one Jang Bahadur Singh lodged a written report (Ext. Ka-1) with police station Loni Katra against these two appellants, Om Prakash (deceased) and Ram Kumar alias Munnu, alleging therein that on 20-10-1977 at about 8. 30 in the evening, while he was coming back after visiting his fields all these persons assaulted him with their Lathis near the Primary School, as a result of which he sustained injuries. It was also stated that he also wielded Lathi in his defence. The incident was allegedly witnessed amongst others by Chandrika Bux Singh, Baleshwar Singh and Iqbal Bahadur Singh. It may be mentioned that a cross-F. I. R. was also lodged by appellant Durga Prasad on the same date at 2. 30, against the first informant Jang Bahadur Singh and 12 others in which it was alleged that the accused named therein committed rioting with deadly weapons and in prosecution of the common object of that unlawful assembly killed Om Prakash and injured others. 3. After necessary investigation charge-sheets were submitted in both the cases. 4. The two appellants and their companion Ram Kumar alias Munnu were charged under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. They came with a defence that they acted in self-defence and the complainant side was aggressor. 5. In support of its case the prosecution examined Jang Bahadur Singh, Chandrika Bux Singh and Baleshwar as P. W. 1, P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 with a view to prove the actual occurrence. It also examined certain other formal witnesses. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that in occurrence Marpeet that took place near Primary School Matera, only the accused Durga Prasad, Chet Ram (appellants) and Om Prakash (the deceased) participated as aggressors. He came to the conclusion that accused Ram Kumar did not assault the complainant and others, in Marpeet near Primary School. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the latter part of Marpeet took place on or near canal Patri. He came to the conclusion that accused Ram Kumar did not assault the complainant and others, in Marpeet near Primary School. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the latter part of Marpeet took place on or near canal Patri. He acquitted Ram Kumar but convicted these appellants. 7. We have heard Sri P. C. Mishra, the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri S. P. Maurya, the learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the record received from the trial Court. 8. Sri Mishra has contended that the trial Court fell in error by holding that the accused were aggressors. Sri Mishra says that the learned Sessions Judge lost sight of the fact that on the side of the accused one Om Prakash was killed and Durga Prasad, Chet Ram, Ram Kumar and Smt. Shiv Natha were badly injured. Sri Mishra goes on to argue that in all fifty injuries were received by the different persons on the side of the accused whereas on the side of the first informant only fourteen injuries were received. Sri Mishra has submitted that amongst the injuries found on the dead body of Om Prakash, two were punctured wounds and likewise two of the injuries of appellant Chet Ram, were caused by sharp edged weapon like Kanta. By arguing this Sri Mishra wants to say that the complainant side was well prepared and therefore it was not difficult for any prudent man to conclude that the accused could not have been aggressors. 9. We have carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence led during the course of trial. Jang Bahadur Singh (P. W. 1) does not say that anybody from his side wielded any Kanta or Bhala or like pointed or sharp edged weapon. What he states is that when the accused started attacking him with their respective Lathis, he defended himself by wielding Lathi. He admits though indirectly that all the four accused sustained injuries, during the course of the some Marpeet. Likewise, Chandrika Bux Singh (P. W. 2) also states when he saw that the accused were assaulting Jang Bahadur Singh with Lathis, he also reached there to save him from the assault but he was also assaulted and he acted in self defence. Likewise, Chandrika Bux Singh (P. W. 2) also states when he saw that the accused were assaulting Jang Bahadur Singh with Lathis, he also reached there to save him from the assault but he was also assaulted and he acted in self defence. What notable in his evidence is that he too, does not say that any body from his side wielded pointed weapon or sharp edged weapon. Baleshwar (P. W. 3) never says that he wielded any Lathi or anybody from the side of the complainant wielded any Bhala or Kanta. Exts Kha-8 to 11 are the injury reports of Durga Prasad, Chet Ram, Ram Kumar and Smt. Shiv Natha and Ext. Kha-1 is the post-mortem report of the deceased Om Prakash which reveals that these persons from the side of accused received several injuries and some of those injuries were caused by sharp edged or pointed weapon. The question is as to how some of the injured on the side of the accused, received these punctured wounds and incised wounds, if none from the side of the first informant (as deposed to by P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3) wielded any such weapon which could have caused those punctured and incised wounds. There appears to be sufficient force in the contention of Sri Mishra that the prosecution has not come with clean hands and it has suppressed the true origin or genesis of the Marpeet. It has been held in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2263, that if the injuries of the accused which they received during the course of occurrence have been suppressed or materially suppressed, then the Court can draw the following sentences: (i) That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version. (ii) That the witnesses, who have denied the presence of the injury on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unbelievable. (iii) In case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of accused, it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. (iii) In case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of accused, it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. Non-explanation of the incised and punctured wounds on the person of accused Om Prakash, who lost his life during the course of the same occurrence and on the person of appellant Chet Ram is sufficient enough to doubt the prosecution version and to disbelieve P. Ws. 1 to 3. It appears that they have not come with true version and they were suppressed a material part of the story, which could here throw some light as to how Om Prakash received punctured wounds and Chet Ram incised wounds. We are of the view that this alone is sufficient to allow the appeal, set aside conviction and sentences. 10. The learned Sessions Judge adopted a faulty approach in evaluating the material on record. He lost sight of the fact that the accused side had received a number of injuries, some of which were not explained and one was killed. Had the accused side been aggressors that side would not have been at the receiving end. So there was a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused was aggressor. The defence version was also probable. 11. So we come to the conclusion that the prosecution was not successful in establishing its case beyond all reasonable doubt, against these two appellants as well and they were entitled to acquittal. 12. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentences are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. 13. Let the record received from the trial Court, be sent back to it with a copy of this judgment. Appeal allowed. .