M. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) ELEVEN persons were tried in Sessions trial No. 570 of 1980 before the IV Addl. Sessions judge, Bulandshahr. They were (i) Udaivir, (ii) Dansahay, (iii) Digambar, (iv) Naurangi, (v)Soran, (vi) Khubi, (vii) Chokha, (viii) Oma, (ix) Maniram, (x) Smt. Kasturi and (xi) Smt. Maharani. Out of them, Soran, Khubi, Chokha, Oma, Maniram, Smt. Kasturi and Smt. Maharani were acquitted. Out of the Remaining four Udaivir was convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. simplicitor, under Sections 452 and 323/34 I. P. C. , 452 and 323/34 I. P. C. For the offence of murder, all the accused were sentenced to life imprisonment, under Section 452 I. P. C. to two years rigorous imprisonment and six moths rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34 I. P. C. All the four have preferred this appeal. Udaivir and Digambar are real brothers being sons of dansahay. Dansahay died during pendency of the appeal and the appeal abated in respect of him under order dated 1. 3. 2004. ( 2 ) BROAD essentials of the prosecution case may be set forth for proper appreciation. The incident took place on 30. 6. 1979 at about 12 O clock in the noon and the report of the same was lodged on 3. 7. 1979 at 9. 30 A. M. by Jaipal Sigh PW 1 (injured ). The place of distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was 4 Kms. In the Mung field of Sriram (uncle of the informant), the she-buffalo of Dansahay had strayed on 30. 6. 1979 at about midday and was damaging the crop. Sriram drove out the she-buffalo of Dansahay from the field giving her 4-5 lathiblows. At that very time Dansahay came and protested against the beating of his she-buffalo tethered, Dansahay held out a threat to Sriram to teach him a lesson of beating his she-buffalo and left Shortly thereafter, Dansahay returned with his sons Udaivir and Digambar, Naurangi, soran, Khubi, Chokha, Oma. Maniram, Smt. Kasturi and Smt. Maharani duly armed with lathi, spear, boori (sharp pointed weapon) and Sanki (two pronged sharp pointed weapon ). To be specific, the present appellant Udaivir was armed with sanki and the remaining three had lathis. All of them attacked Sriram declaring their intention to kill him. Maniram, Smt. Kasturi and Smt. Maharani duly armed with lathi, spear, boori (sharp pointed weapon) and Sanki (two pronged sharp pointed weapon ). To be specific, the present appellant Udaivir was armed with sanki and the remaining three had lathis. All of them attacked Sriram declaring their intention to kill him. Sriram ran into his gher to take shelter, but he was followed by the accused who entered his Gher and assaulted him (Sriram), complainant Jaipal and Vijaypal Udaivir dealt a Sanki blow piercing the abdomen of Sriram. On the alarm of Sriram, witnesses Hari Singh, Parmal, Basdeo, Hukum Singh, Tej Singh, Ram prasad etc. , arrived and intervened. Due to serious injuries, the victims were rushed to P. H. C. Pahasu in a bullock-cart where they were medically examined between 3 and 4. 30 P. M. the condition of Sriram was serious and he was rushed to District hospital, Bulandshahr where he was admitted till next day but the Doctors finding no hope to save his life referred him to Delhi. On 1. 7. 1979 he (Sriram) was shifted to Delhi in the evening where he succumbed to his injuries. His autopsy was performed the following day whereafter the dead body was entrusted to the complainant who brought it to his village in the night of 2. 7. 1979 and after cremation, he (Jaipal singh) lodged the report the following day after getting it scribed from Vinod Kumar. A case crime No. 165a was registered and the investigation was taken up by S. I. Hukam Singh CW 2. ( 3 ) AS per initial medical examination report of Sriram as also his post mortem report, he had suffered a punctured wound on the left side abdomen, 5. 5 cm away from the umbilicus. He was aged about 45 years and the death was result of such injury sustained by him. ( 4 ) VIJAY Pal had sustained lacerated wound 5. 5 cm x 0. 4 cm x bone deep on left side scalp. Jaipal sing had sustained a lacerated wound 3 cm x 0. 5cm x bone deep on left side scalp obliquely place 5 cm above the middle of left eyebrow and it was kept under observation. The second injury was abrasion 5cm x 0. 4 cm on right side abdomen and the third was traumatic swelling 4 x 3. Jaipal sing had sustained a lacerated wound 3 cm x 0. 5cm x bone deep on left side scalp obliquely place 5 cm above the middle of left eyebrow and it was kept under observation. The second injury was abrasion 5cm x 0. 4 cm on right side abdomen and the third was traumatic swelling 4 x 3. 5 cm on back of left elbow in which tenderness was present. Injury No. 1 to 3 were kept under observation and X-ray was advised. The injuries of both these injured had been caused by blunt object. On X-ray, one of the injuries of Jaipal Singh was found to be grievous. ( 5 ) THE investigating Officer visited the spot after the lodging of the F. I. R. and registration of the case he prepared the site plan and collected blood stained strings of the cot and did other related activities. ( 6 ) THE accused persons refuted the prosecution version and the incident as alleged. Udaivir set up a counter version that he along with his elder brother was sitting in the Verandah when sriram, Jaipal Charan Singh, Bhudeo, Ramjilal, Durjan, Vijaypal, Basdeo and Parmal came armed with lathi, spears and Sanki and attacked his brother Naurangi. When his aunt Smt. Maharani and Smt. Kasturi came to his rescue, injuries were inflicted on them also and in self defence Sanki and lathi were used from his side. The victims from the side of the accused were also examined and the report of cross-version had earlier been lodged in respect of which case crime No. 165 had been registered. The same plea was adopted by Naurangi (cousin of Udaivir ). ( 7 ) THE prosecution examined the injured complainant Jaipal Singh PW 1 Ram Prasad PW 2 and hukam Singh PW 3 as eyewitness. Dr. S. P. Goel who had medically examined the victims was examined as CW 2 and Constable Gajai Singh was examined as CW 3 to prove the G. D. entries no. 14 and 26 dated 27. 6. 1979 relating to the visit of the Nayab tehsildar to the village in connection with delivery of possession to the landless labourers with the police help. The F. I. R. of the cross version of the incident was also got proved which had been lodged by Udaibir accused on 2. 7. 1981 at 6. 14 and 26 dated 27. 6. 1979 relating to the visit of the Nayab tehsildar to the village in connection with delivery of possession to the landless labourers with the police help. The F. I. R. of the cross version of the incident was also got proved which had been lodged by Udaibir accused on 2. 7. 1981 at 6. 15 P. M. ( 8 ) ON appraisal of the evidence, the trial judge recorded the judgment impugned in this appeal. ( 9 ) WE have heard Sri A. B. L. Gaur, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sudhir Kumar agarwal, learned A. G. A. from the side of the State. The record has been summoned which has carefully been perused by us. ( 10 ) ON hearing learned counsel for both the sides and giving our anxious consideration to the evidence on record together with the attending circumstances, we are firmly of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed for the following two reasons. ( 11 ) FIRSTLY, the F. I. R. of the case is inordinately delayed where for there is no plausible explanation. Rather, the circumstances indicate as if it was lodged after concoction and deliberation subsequent to the F. I. R. lodged from the side of the accused. The incident tool place on 30. 6. 1979 in mid-day. The F. I. R. was lodged on 3. 7. 1979 at 9. 30 A. M. by Jaipal Singh PW 1 who claims himself to be one of the injured of the felony. It has come down from his cross-examination that when he and other injured were on their way for medical examination, p. S. Pahasu fell in the way, Vijay Pal (injured), Sriram (injured who later on died) Hari Singh and two of four other person were with him. Despite that, no F. I. R. was lodged at P. S. Phasu, via Pahasu, they reached Bulandshahr. Their several relations numbering about 20 joined them. Out of them, one or two were literate or educated also. But none was sent for lodging the F. I. R. at police station, Bulandshahr either. The excuse offered by him is that the injuries were serious. Their several relations numbering about 20 joined them. Out of them, one or two were literate or educated also. But none was sent for lodging the F. I. R. at police station, Bulandshahr either. The excuse offered by him is that the injuries were serious. It would be noted from the injury reports of the three injured (Jaipal Singh PW 1, Sriram (who on died) and Vijay Pal (injured) that only the injury of Sriram was serious being punctured wound of abdomen which turned out to be fatal. Therefore, anybody could have gone to lodge the F. I. R. but nothing of ht king was done Sriram was taken to Delhi for treatment, but no report was lodged at Delhi either even after the date of Sriram there. His inquest report was prepared at delhi at the hands of a Sub Inspector of Police. Jaipal PW 1 also stated in his cross-examination that he had told the Inspector preparing the inquest report at Delhi that he would make statement regarding the incident only at the concerned police station. The dead body was then brought by taxi to the village as per his statement, reaching there at about sunset. But the report was not lodged the also. According to him, an attempt was made to lodge the F. I. R. on reaching the village from Delhi but none was ready to do so. The report was ultimately lodged on 3. 7. 1979 from cremation of Sriram. ( 12 ) IN the meantime, the F. I. R. from the defence side had been lodged on 2. 7. 1979 at 6. 15 P. M. It admits of no doubt that the F. I. R. of the defence. Jaipal PW 1 has wrongly stated in his cross-examination that he did not know about the lodging of the F. I. R. from the defence side a day earlier. It has also to be recalled that there were four injured from the side of the accused, out of whom two were ladies, namely, Smt. Kasturi and Smt. Maharani. The other two were accused appellants Naurangi and Udaivir. The injuries of all these four had been examined at P. H. C. Pahasu on 30. 6. 1979 between 7 P. M. and 8. The other two were accused appellants Naurangi and Udaivir. The injuries of all these four had been examined at P. H. C. Pahasu on 30. 6. 1979 between 7 P. M. and 8. 30 P. M. The two ladies Smt. Kasturi and Smt. Maharani were also arrayed as accused in the F. I. R. of the prosecution lodged on 3. 7. 1979 and it was seemingly done on legal advice. It might have been felt necessary on deliberation and examination too had been got conducted. These ladies were implicated as accused so that an explanation for their injuries could be offered in case of necessity Further, Soran, Maniram, khubi and Chokha were eyewitnesses in the defence F. I. R. Therefore, these four persons were also arrayed as accused persons by the prosecution in the F. I. R. lodged on 3. 7. 1979. Oma son of soran was also arrayed as an accused by the prosecution. Usually, two ladies Smt. Kasturi and smt. Maharani would not have joined hands with the male members of their family to launch attack in the Gher of Sriram. The belated lodging of the F. I. R. by the prosecution on 3. 7. 1979 at 9. 30 A. M. , naming eleven persons including two ladies as assailants was the outcome of scheming and design with an eye on the defence case as unfolded in the cross F. I. R. lodged earlier in point of time. ( 13 ) OBVIOUSLY, the conclusion in inescapable that the earliest version of the prosecution in the from of the F. I. R. came into existence long after the incident and it was the result of deliberation so as to meet the allegations made in the F. I. R. of defence lodged earlier in point of time. This flaw gives a serious jerk to the prosecution case as sought to be built up in the belatedly lodged f. I. R. ( 14 ) SECONDLY, the prosecution in the present case had not at all explained the injuries suffered by as many as four persons on the side of the accused including two ladies. We need labour much on the point that there is an obligation on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries suffered on the side of accused if they are not insignificant. We need labour much on the point that there is an obligation on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries suffered on the side of accused if they are not insignificant. In the case at hand, the injuries suffered by Smt. Kasturi, Smt. Maharani, Naurangi and Udaivir are not insignificant capable of being ignored or brushed aside lightly. Out of them, Smt. Kasturi and Udaivir each had suffered grievous injuries also. The number and nature of the injuries received on the side of the side of the accused is a factor which has to be taken into account in deciding the question of aggressor. In the instant case, the injuries sustained by four accused including two ladies were numerous they were suffered at about the same time and the trial court was not justified in holding that the same had been suffered in some other incident. Udaivir had lacerated wound on the left side of scalp and two abrasions on the right side of neck. Smt. Kasturi had an abraded contusion on the left upper lip and lacerated wound on the left side from the bone of first incisor to second incisor tooth on left upper side. Second tooth was loose. Smt. Maharani had an incised wound on the left forearm and two contusions on the left shoulder joint and the left side back. Naurangi had a traumatic swelling over the little finger, a contusion on the left forearm and two abraded contusions over the left back over scapular bone and top of right shoulder. Injury No. 2 of Smt. Kasturi, it would be recalled, had turned out to be grievous. There was also discovered fracture of injury No. 1 of Udaivir. ( 15 ) IT also admits of no doubt that the blunt and sharp edged weapons had been used to inflict injuries on the side accused persons. ( 16 ) IT is, however, strange that all the three eyewitnesses, namely Jaipal Singh PW 1, Ram Prasad pw2 and Hukam Singh PW 3 completely disowned injuries sustained on the side of the accused. All these witnesses claimed to be knitting the thatch of Sardar Singh nearby the place of incident which occurred in day time. In fact, Jaipal Singh himself even claims to be one of the injured of the felony. All these witnesses claimed to be knitting the thatch of Sardar Singh nearby the place of incident which occurred in day time. In fact, Jaipal Singh himself even claims to be one of the injured of the felony. However, the statement of Jaipal Singh PW 1 is clear denial of the injuries of these injured on the side of accused. He stated that Smt. Kasturi, Smt. Maharani, Naurangi and Udaivir did not sustain any injury in the this incident. He went to the extent of saying that neither he nor any witness from his side had any weapon. Ram Prasad PW 2 spoke in the same tenor that he did not see Smt. Kasturi, Smt. Maharani, Udaivir and Naurangi Suffering any injury. According to him also, neither any prosecution witness nor Sriram, Vijay Pal or Jaipal Singh had any weapon. To the same effect is the statement of Hukam Singh PW 3. It is a stark lie spoken by all the three eyewitnesses of fact which leads to the unerring conclusion that the prosecution presented a twisted and fabricated account of the incident without explaining the injuries sustained on the side of the accused. In the instant case, the injured on the side of the accused had also reached the hospital in the evening of the incident and their injuries were examined. In all the probabilities, they suffered injuries in the same incident. ( 17 ) IN the absence of explanation as to the injuries on the side of the accused, we are of the opinion that the prosecution version as alleged becomes doubtful. The truth has been concealed. Instead of unfolding the truth pertaining to the incident, there has been suppression of facts by the prosecution which casts doubt on its case. The judgment of the trial court has to be reversed. The defence had been able to create doubt in the prosecution version because of the absence of explanation for the injuries sustained from their (accuseds) side. ( 18 ) THERE is yet another factor which created doubt in the prosecution case of the incident having taken place in Gher of Sriram and probablising the defence case and their counter version that sriram, Jaipal Singh, Vijay Pal etc. had launched the attack when Udaivir and his elder brother were sitting in their verandah. ( 18 ) THERE is yet another factor which created doubt in the prosecution case of the incident having taken place in Gher of Sriram and probablising the defence case and their counter version that sriram, Jaipal Singh, Vijay Pal etc. had launched the attack when Udaivir and his elder brother were sitting in their verandah. The defence was that Sriram Jaipal, Vijaypal and others came armed with lathis, spears and Sanki and attacked Naurangi. When Udaibir, Maharani and Kasturi came to his rescue they were also inflicted injuries and it was in self defence that Sanki and lathi were wielded from the defence side resulting in injuries on the prosecution side. The investigating Officer Hukam Singh CW 2 stated in his cross-examination that he had found blood in the Verandah of Dansahay. There could hardly be any occasion for the presence of blood in the Verandah of Dansahay in case the incident had taken place in the Gher of Sriram. The Gher was beyond the millet and paddy fields of Sriram. The blood could possibly be there in the Verandah of Dansahay (father of Udaivir and Digambar accused), if the incident had taken place there. ( 19 ) SO, on appraisal of the evidence on record and attending circumstances, we come to the conclusion that there are several black spots in the prosecution version. Dark clouds of doubt are hovering all around. The prosecution has presented a distorted version of the incident and adduced evidence accordingly, starting with inordinate lodging of the F. I. R. and not explaining the noticeable injuries suffered by the four persons on the side of the accused including two ladies. On such weak persons on the side of the accused including two ladies. On such weak state of evidence, the conviction of the accused appellants was not at all justifiable. ( 20 ) WE allow this appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court. The appeal has already abated as against Dansahay because of his death. The remaining three accused appellants Udaivir, Naurangi and Digambar are already on bail. They need not surrender. ( 21 ) THE judgment be immediately certified to the lower court for necessary entries in the relevant register and reporting compliance to this court within two months from the date receipt of a copy of this order. . .