State of U. P. has filed this appeal against judgment and order dated 13-8-1981 passed in Sessions Trial No. 311 of 1979 by the then IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur. The accused-respondents were tried and acquitted under Section 307 read with Section 34 I. P. C. 2. We have heard Sri S. K. Paul, learned A. G. A. for the State and Sri Amar Saran, learned counsel for the accused-respondents, and have perused the record. 3. Jagdish Prasad Khanna, P. W. 1, and his brother, Prayag Narain, P. W. 2, are the sons of Salig Ram and they reside in Mohalla Ghuran Talaiya Police Station Kotwali District Shahjahanpur. Salig Rams father was Nanak Chand. Nanak Chand had one brother, Kalyan Mal whose son is Onkar Nath. Rakesh Kumar is the son of Onkar Nath. Onkar Nath and Rakesh Kumar are accused in this case. The house of the accused is also in the same Mohalla towards north of the house of Jagdish Prasad Khanna, P. W. 1. Thus, the parties are related to each other. According to prosecution case on 9-10-1978 at about 8. 30 a. m. the incident in question took place on the issue of reconstruction of latrine. It is alleged that verbal altercation and grappling took place whereafter accused, Onkar Nath assaulted Prayag Narain, P. W. 2, with knife and accused Rakesh Kumar assaulted Jagdish Prasad Khanna, P. W. 1, by knife. The wife of Jagdish Prasad intervened and she was also assaulted by knife. However, she retraced her step and knife blow hit her very lightly. The First Information Report of the case was lodged by Sanjai Khanna, P. W. 3, who is the son of Jagdish Prasad Khanna, P. W. 1, at 8. 45 a. m. on 9-10-1978. 4. The defence case was that on the date of occurrence at about 7 a. m. labourers of the accused, Rakesh Kumar came and the he told them to break the wall of the latrine because it was in dilapidated condition. On hearing the direction of the accused, Rakesh Kumar to the labourers, Jagdish Prasad Khanna, P. W. 1, and Prayag Narain, P. W. 2, came and told him that he could not reconstruct the latrine. Accused, Rakesh Kumar claimed that since the latrine was in his possession, he had every right to reconstruct it. On hearing the direction of the accused, Rakesh Kumar to the labourers, Jagdish Prasad Khanna, P. W. 1, and Prayag Narain, P. W. 2, came and told him that he could not reconstruct the latrine. Accused, Rakesh Kumar claimed that since the latrine was in his possession, he had every right to reconstruct it. Verbal talks were going on when in the meantime Jagdish Prasad Khanna took out a knife and assaulted accused, Rakesh Kumar. In warding off the knife below, accused Rakesh Kumar sustained injuries on his finger. Thereupon accused, Rakesh Kumar pushed Jagdish Prasad Khanna who fell down on the floor where spade, Tasla and bricks were lying. When Jagdish Prasad Khanna fell down, Prayag Narain pounced upon the accused, Rakesh Kumar. Rakesh Kumar also pushed Prayag Narain and he also fell down. In the meantime, Jagdish Prasad Khanna got up and tried to assault accused, Rakesh Kumar again by knife. Thereupon Rakesh Kumar picked up a Belcha and in order to save himself struck Jagdish Prasad Khanna which hit him in his stomach. D. W. 1, Triloki Nath Khanna, who is the brother of accused, Onkar nath, has stated about the defence case. Onkar Nath has denied his presence at the time of occurrence. 5. P. W. 1, Jagdish Prasad Khanna and P. W. 2, Prayag Narain are the two injured. P. W. 3, Sanjay Khanna is scribe of the written report and he also claims to be an eye witness. Apart from them, Hakim Singh, P. W. 4, Dr. Satya Pal, P. W. 5 and the Investigating Officer, Chhutanna Singh, P. W. 6, have been examined by the prosecution. The trial Court found that there is difference regarding the place of occurrence. The First Information Report has been anti timed. The prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses. There is no independent corroboration by any witness although the witnesses were available. The trial Court held that the defence version is more probable. On these findings, accused respondents have been acquitted. Feeling aggrieved, the State of U. P. has come up in appeal. 6. The grand-father of Jagdish Prasad Khanna and Prayag Narain was Nanak Chand. Mukund Ram was the brother of Nanak Chand. Durga Devi and Sharda Devi were daughter-in-laws of Mukund Ram. On these findings, accused respondents have been acquitted. Feeling aggrieved, the State of U. P. has come up in appeal. 6. The grand-father of Jagdish Prasad Khanna and Prayag Narain was Nanak Chand. Mukund Ram was the brother of Nanak Chand. Durga Devi and Sharda Devi were daughter-in-laws of Mukund Ram. On 17- 8- 1979 Sharda Devi and heirs of Durga Devi executed a sale deed of the latrine (over which the incident had taken place) and land towards east of the latrine in favour of Munni Devi, wife of Jagdish Prasad Khanna, P. W. 1. Thereafter, a civil suit was filed by Sharda Devi regarding the said latrine against Jagdish Prasad Khanna, P. W. 1, Prayag Narain, P. W. 2, and accused, Onkar Nath and one Shambhu Nath. In that suit Jagdish Prasad Khanna, P. W. 1, and accused, Onkar Nath had filed joint written statement. In the written statement it was pleaded that accused, Onkar Nath and his brother had been using the latrine and had been in possession over the same from the time of their ancestors. It was further pleaded that they acquired title by adverse possession and in the alternative they had acquired right of easement. As such they had right to reconstruct and make repairs. Jagdish Prasad Khanna, P. W. 1, admitted that in the suit there was an order whereby accused, Onkar Nath was permitted to build the walls of the latrine. A perusal of the joint written statement shows that Jagdish Prasad Khanna, P. W. 1, and accused Onkar Nath claimed joint use of the latrine. During investigation it was not the case of Jagdish Prasad Khanna that after the sale deed was executed in favour of Munni Devi, wife of Jagdish Prasad Khanna, their possession became exclusive. It has come in evidence that brother of accused, Onkar Nath, namely, Nathu Lal and his tenant, namely, V. K. Kohali, had been using this latrine for several years. The finding of the trial Court that Jagdish Prasad Khanna and his wife had no exclusive possession over the latrine is based on the totality of the evidence adduced in this case. 7. Jagdish Prasad Khanna, P. W. 1, and his brother Prayag Narain, the two injured, had bleeding injuries. Prayag Narain had incised wound 4 cm x 0. 8 cm x 4. 7. Jagdish Prasad Khanna, P. W. 1, and his brother Prayag Narain, the two injured, had bleeding injuries. Prayag Narain had incised wound 4 cm x 0. 8 cm x 4. 0 cm U. O. left side back of thoracic edge, 4 cm above left renal angle. Jagdish Prasad Khanna, P. W. 1, had incised wound 7. 5 cm x 2 cm x peritoneal cavity deep seen left sub costal border and above at & around 9th costal cartilage. His second injury was an incised wound 4. 5 cm x 0. 2 cm x muscle deep on right side scapula, medial half. The injuries have been stated by Dr. Satya Pal, P. W. 5. Blood was not found by the Investigating Officer. According to the prosecution, occurrence took place on the north Baithaka of Jagdish Prasad Khanna. However, P. W. 2, Prayag Narain has stated that the assault took place near about the place where bricks were stored. The defence suggestion that incident took place near the wall of the latrine is probablised. 8. According to the prosecution case, verbal altercation was followed by grappling and thereafter knife blow was allegedly given. The prosecution case is that Jagdish Prasad Khanna snatched the knife from accused, Rakesh Kumar which was later on deposited at the police station. It has come in evidence that some construction was going on prior to the incident in question. Jagdish Prasad was on visiting terms with accused, Onkar Nath. Since construction work was going on from before the incident, there was no occasion for the accused persons to speak out loudly that they will rebuild the latrine. According to Jagdish Prasad Khanna accused, Onkar Nath gave knife blow on his back while accused Rakesh Kumar gave knife blow on his abdomen. When Prayag Narain came Onkar Nath gave him knife blow on his back. The medical evidence shows that it was not possible for Jagdish Prasad Khanna to snatch knife after having received injuries in his abdomen. In fact, it was Sanjay, son of Jagdish Prasad, who deposited the knife in the police station. According to Prayag Narain, accused, Onkar Nath gave him first knife blow. In the statement of Prayag Narain it has not come that accused, Rakesh Kumar gave second knife blow to Jagdish Prasad Khanna. The injury of the third injured, Smt. Munni Devi was superficial as stated by Dr. According to Prayag Narain, accused, Onkar Nath gave him first knife blow. In the statement of Prayag Narain it has not come that accused, Rakesh Kumar gave second knife blow to Jagdish Prasad Khanna. The injury of the third injured, Smt. Munni Devi was superficial as stated by Dr. Satya Pal, P. W. 5, which could also be self suffered. Sanjay, P. W. 3, although author of the First Information Report is not an eye witness of the occurrence. He was on the first floor. The two injured, Jagdish Prasad Khanna and Prayag Narain have not stated about his presence at the time of incident. The trial Court rightly held that he is a wholly reliable witness. Sanjay has stated that during the incident accused, Rakesh Kumar had also sustained injuries. Dr. Satya Pal has stated that a Belcha having sharp edge could cause the injuries to Jagdish Prasad Khanna and the injuries of Prayag Narain could have been caused by fall on edged Tasla or Pharuha. D. W. 1, Triloki Nath Khanna is common relative of the two injured and accused. Nothing has come in evidence of D. W. 1 for discrediting his testimony. The trial Court for good and valid reasons has found that the occurrence could have taken place at 7 a. m. as has been suggested by the defence. The view taken by the trial Court that in the facts and circumstances, as brought in evidence, the defence version is probable is a possible view based on the appraisal of the evidence. The view taken by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse. The trial Court committed no error in accepting the theory of self defence as put forward by the accused persons. The order of acquittal of the accused respondents is based on cogent and convincing reasons and no interference is called for in the judgment recorded by the trial Court. 9. The appeal has got no force and is accordingly dismissed. The respondents are on bail. They need no surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal dismissed. .