This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3-12-1980 by which learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda convicted and sentenced all the five appellants to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 I. P. C. , one years R. I. under Section 147 I. P. C. and to six months R. I. under Section 426 I. P. C. 2. Appellants Basu Deo, Ram Bhawan and Ram Kumar have died during the pendency of this appeal and since none of their legal representatives has come forward to continue the appeal, so the appeal filed by them stands abated. 3. In brief, the prosecution case was that on 19-7-1977 at about 10 in the morning the accused Basu Deo was digging pit to plant bamboo clumps, allegedly in Khalihan land of the deceased Surya Pal. Seeing this Surya Pal reached there to raise objection and during the course of altercation and on the exhortation of appellant Basu Deo, the rest of the appellants also reached there armed with Lathis. It is said that all the five assaulted Surya Pal as a result of which he sustained fatal injuries to which he succumbed subsequently in the hospital on 22-7-1977. It was claimed that the incident was witnessed by Mani Ram (P. W. 1), Sub Rati (P. W. 2) and Ayodhya Prasad (P. W. 3) and others. 4. Mani Ram, brother of Surya Pal lodged a written F. I. R. on the same day at 2. 50 p. m. In spite of the best efforts made by the doctors Surya Pal could not be saved. After necessary investigation the Police recommended for prosecution of all the five accused. 5. The appellant Ram Bhavan also lodged one F. I. R. on the same day at 5. 30 p. m. , giving a different version of the Marpeet and saying that on his side he, Basu Deo and Shri Ram also received injuries during the course of occurrence. There is no dispute on the point that a case was registered on the First Information Report of Ram Bhavan. It appears that after investigation the Police submitted a charge- sheet in that cross- case as well. 6. In support of its case the prosecution examined Mani Ram, Subrati and Ayodhya Prasad as PW 1 to P. W. 8. Some other formal witnesses were also examined. It appears that after investigation the Police submitted a charge- sheet in that cross- case as well. 6. In support of its case the prosecution examined Mani Ram, Subrati and Ayodhya Prasad as PW 1 to P. W. 8. Some other formal witnesses were also examined. The accused also examined Dr Jagdish Chandra as D W 1 and R. B. Dube as D. W. 2. Dr. R. S. Pandey and Dr Y. N. Pathak were examined as Court Witnesses 1 and 2. 7. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution was successful in establishing its case beyond all reasonable doubt and defence version was totally false and unacceptable. The learned Judge, therefore, recorded the conviction as mentioned earlier. 8. We have heard Sri S. M. Nasir, the learned counsel for the surviving appellants and Sri Umesh Chandra Verma, the learned counsel for the State and have also perused the record received from the trial Court. 9. Sri Nasir has contended that the learned Sessions Judge could not appreciate the defence version. Sri Nasir argued that it was proved and there was also sufficient material before the trial Court to prove that Basu Deo, Shri Ram and Ram Bhawan received injuries during the course of the same occurrence and since the prosecution and its witnesses have not explained their injuries, therefore, this alone was sufficient to reject the prosecution case. Sri Nasir has contended that the defence had not to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts and even if defence was able to show that its version was also probable, the accused were entitled to acquittal. Sri Nasir says that the observation of the learned Judge that had as many as ten or eleven persons assaulted Basu Deo as was alleged in the cross F. I. R. , the deceased would not have received fatal injuries, is totally ill founded and it appears the he approached the matter from totally different angle. 10. Let us see as to whether there is material on record to show that on the side of appellants, Basu Deo, Ram Bhawan and Shri Ram received injuries during the course of the same occurrence and as to whether non-explanation of those injuries is a circumstance to doubt the correctness of the prosecution version. 11. Doctor M. N. Raijada (P. W. 4), who examined Surya Pal on 19-7- 1977 at 4. 11. Doctor M. N. Raijada (P. W. 4), who examined Surya Pal on 19-7- 1977 at 4. 30 p. m. states that on the same date he also examined Ram Bhawan at 7. 20 p. m. , Basu Deo at 7. 30 p. m. and Sri Ram at 7. 40 p. m. Dr. Raijada says that he found as many as two injuries on the person of Ram Bhawan, three on the person of Basu Deo and two on the person of Shri Ram. Dr. Raijada has also stated that all these injuries of Sri Ram, Basu Deo and Ram Bhawan were possible by means of Lathis. Dr. says that these injuries were fresh and could have been received at the same time. There was no cross-examination from the side of prosecution so as to challenge the statement of Dr. Raijada on the point relating to the injuries of Shri Ram, Basu Deo and Ram Bhavan. In other words there was no suggestion that the injuries could have been self- suffered or self-inflicted. A perusal of the evidence of Money Ram, Sub Rati and Ayodhya Prasad reveals that the defence put a clear cut suggestion to them that Basu Deo, Ram Bhawan and Shri Ram were injured by the complainant side, during the course of the same occurrence but all the three witnesses denied those suggestions. It is also not in dispute and it is also proved from Exts. Kha-4 and Kha-5 that Ram Bhawan lodged a cross FIR on the same clay in the evening, stating about the injuries sustained by him and others. Doctor Raijada has also admitted that Shri Ram, Ram Bhawan and Basu Deo were sent by the Police for medical examination with a letter for medical examination. 12. In the circumstances we see no reason as to how it can be said that these three persons on the side of accused, did not receive injuries on that day at about 10 in the morning. It is not the prosecution case that these persons received injuries in some other manner. The statement of the accused that the injuries were received by Shri Ram, Basu Deo and Ram Bhawan during the course of the same Marpeet finds support from the medical and other evidence. It was not necessary for the defence to move their cross-version beyond all reasonable doubt. 13. The statement of the accused that the injuries were received by Shri Ram, Basu Deo and Ram Bhawan during the course of the same Marpeet finds support from the medical and other evidence. It was not necessary for the defence to move their cross-version beyond all reasonable doubt. 13. We fail to understand as to how the learned Judge jumped to the conclusion that the injuries found by Dr. Raijada on the person of Shri Ram, Basu Deo and Ram Bhawan were manufactured. For saying so there should have been material on record. There is no presumption that the injuries found on the person of some one are manufactured. As stated earlier, the prosecution had no courage to put Dr. Raijada that the injuries found on the persons of Ram Bhawan, Shri Ram and Basu Deo were self- inflicted or self- suffered. There was no suggestion to Dr. Raijada that he prepared the injury reports, without there being injury on the person of those three persons. So there was no occasion for the learned Judge to say that the injuries were manufactured. 14. On the contrary, we find that there was substance in the defence version that on its side Sri Ram, Basu Deo and Ram Bhawan sustained injuries during the course of the same occurrence. 15. Now the next question arises as to whether the prosecution was obliged to explain these injuries on Ram Bhawan, Basu Deo and Shri Ram. It can be said that in cases where the injuries are simple or minor, the prosecution may not be under duty to explain the same but where the injuries are serious, the prosecution is under an obligation to explain the same and if it fails to do so, the Court will be compelled to draw an inference that it has not come with true version and defence version may also be true. 16. In the instant case injuries found by Dr. Raijada on the persons of Ram Bhawan, Basu Deo and Shri Ram cannot be said to be simple or minor. According to him there was one lacerated wound on the frontal region of Basu Deo. The other lacerated wound on his person was also on the parietal region. Likewise lacerated wound on the person of Basudeo was also on the head. There were two lacerated wounds on the person of Shri Ram. According to him there was one lacerated wound on the frontal region of Basu Deo. The other lacerated wound on his person was also on the parietal region. Likewise lacerated wound on the person of Basudeo was also on the head. There were two lacerated wounds on the person of Shri Ram. It cannot be said that the injuries on the head were minor so as not to be explained by the prosecution. It is surprising that neither in the First Information Report, nor in the statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. nor in the witness box, attempt has been made to explain these injuries of Basudeo, Shri Ram and Ram Bhawan. Instead of explaining the same the three witnesses of fact P. W. 1 to P. W. 3 have denied that Basu Deo, Ram Bhawan and Shri Ram received any such injuries. We are of the view that by suppressing the injuries of the accused, the prosecution has actually suppressed the true version of the Marpeet and has rendered its case totally doubtful. In the circumstances when the defence has also a counter version, this Court has reason to say that the counter version may also be probable. 17. In view of the discussion made above, the conviction and sentences as recorded by the learned Judge deserve to be set aside and surviving appellants to be acquitted. There is no need for discussing other points. 18. In the result, the appeal of Ram Tej and Chandra Bali is allowed. Their conviction and sentences are set aside. They are acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 302/149, 147 and 426 IPC. 19. They are on bail. The bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 20. Let record received from the trial Court sent back with a copy of this judgment. Appeal allowed. .