Judgment SURYA KANT, J. 1. The appellants having been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 148, IPC, RI for a period of two years along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 325, IPC, RI for a period of one year for the offence under Section 324, IPC and RI for a period of six months for the offence under Section 323, IPC and in default of paymentd of fine to undergo further RI for a period of three months vide judgment dated 12-10-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1999 arising out of a criminal complaint filed by Smt. Indrawati wife of Ram Sarup, have filed this appeal challenging the aforementioned judgment. 2. According to the complainant Smt. Indrawati, she along with her husband Ram Sarup and their son Mahender were irrigating their fields on 25-11-1996 when at about 4.30 p.m., the appellant with their common intention to kill the complainants husband (Ram Sarup) came to the fields armed with lathis and ballams and surrounded the complainant, her husband Ram Sarup and their son Mahender. Bed Ram-appellant No. 1 firstly removed kundi of the diesel engine with a view to pick up the fight and thereafter started abusing the husband of the complainant apart from giving lalkara that the complainants husband should be killed and be not allowed to escape. Thereafter, Bed Ram gave a ballam blow from blunt side on the head of the complainants husband (Ram Sarup) whereas Bal Kishan-appellant No. 2 gave ballam blow on the left hand of Ram Sarup and Jagdish gave a ballam blow on the back of Ram Sarup and meantime Manoj, Harbans alias Nanda and Satish also reached the spot with deadly weapons like lathi and ballams and upon seeing them, the complainant husband (Ram Sarup) started running towards the village and reached near the village when Harbans alias Nanda gave a ballam blow on his left hand. Meanwhile, the complainant and her son Mahender also reached at the spot and were injured by the appellants and other accused persons. Meanwhile, the complainant and her son Mahender also reached at the spot and were injured by the appellants and other accused persons. According to the complainant, the occurrence was witnessed by Bhola Ram and Hukam Chand sons of Roopan of their village; that the complainant and her husband reached P. S. Sardar Palwal on the same day and reported the matter vide rapat No. 22 dated 25-11-1996 and thereafter got the complainants husband medico legally examined in the General Hospital, Palwal vide MLR No. RA/124/96 according to which he was found to have suffered seven injuries including injuries No. 2 and 3 which were dangerous to life. 3. In order to establish the charges against the appellants, the complainant examined (i) Dr. S. M. Mehra (PW-1); (ii) Dr. Ramesh Likha (PW2); (iii) Ram Sarup - injured husband of the complainant (PW3); and (iv) Indrawati-complainant herself (PW4) while leading her post-charge evidence. 4. On the other hand, in their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the appellants took up the stand that in fact they along with their some more family members including Harbans, son of Kanhaiya were attacked by Ram Sarup, his son Mahender and their associates in front of baithak of Harbans, son of Kanhaiya with ballams and with a common intention to kill one or the other appellants and in that attack while Harbans was murdered, Bal Kishan, Jagdish and Ved Ram appellants, too received multiple injuries as a result of which Ram Sarup, his son and their associates were booked and were facing trial in FIR No. 492, dated 25-11-1996, P. S. Sadar, Palwal under Sections 148, 149, 302, 326, 324, 323 and 506, IPC. 5. It may be mentioned at this stage that vide his judgment and order dated 4/11-10-1999, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad in Sessions Case No. 23 of 1997 arising out of the above stated FIR No. 492, dated 25-11-1996, P. S. Sadar Palwal held one Ved Prakash, son of Ganga Parsad guilty under Sectin 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for life whereas his co-accused which included the husband of the complainant, namely, Ram Sarup son of Badan and their son Mahender, were convicted under Sections 148, 326, 324 and 323, IPC and were sentenced to undergo different kinds of RIs. Vide the said judgment dated 4-10-1999, the learned Additional Sessions Judge also held that firstly the appellants had attacked Ram Sarup husband of complainant in the fields and thereafter the appellants were attacked by Ram Sarup, his son and their associates in front of baithak of Harbans, son of Kanhaiya, in which the said Harbans lost his life. 6. Relying upon the aforesaid findings of fact returned by him in Sessions Case No. 23 of 1999, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide the impugned judgment dated 12-10-1999 held as follows :- "Both the sides had led evidence to substantiate their respective version before this Court in the said sessions case and this Court has held that actually this case did not involve the exercise of the right of privated defence, inasmuch as the incident had first taken place in the fields where Ram Sarup PW-3 was caused injuries and then in order to avenge the causing of said injuries, the complainant party came in the village near the baithak of the accused and there caused injuries to Harbans, Jagdish, Bal Kishan and Bed Ram and Harbans then succumbed to the said injuries. In this manner, the incident giving rise to the present case and the incident giving rise to sessions case No. 23 of 1997 were held to be quite distinct incidents. This clearly negatives the defence plea now adopted by the accused in the present case." 7. As a result of the aforementioned conclusion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that on 25-11-1996 Ram Sarup-husband of the complainant was caused as many as seven injuries on his person by the appellants and consequently convicted and sentenced them. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record, especially the pre-charge and post-charge evidence led by the complainant. 9. On an appreciation of the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution case suffers with glaring lacunae thereby causing strong suspicion on the complainants version. Firstly, on a perusal of the complaint itself, we find that there is absolutely no mention of the injuries suffered by the appellants party in which Harbans lost his life whereas Bal Kishan and Jagdish were caused multiple injuries. Firstly, on a perusal of the complaint itself, we find that there is absolutely no mention of the injuries suffered by the appellants party in which Harbans lost his life whereas Bal Kishan and Jagdish were caused multiple injuries. While deposing before the Court, Ram Sarup (PW3) admitted that, "it is true that Harbans died in this incident on the same date. It is also correct that we are facing trial under Section 302, IPC with regard to this very incident. I do not know as to how Harbans, son of Kanhaiya, Jagdish and Bed Ram from the side of the accused came to receive injuries in this incident." Smt. Indrawati-complainant (PW-4), however, attempted to improve their version by stating that, "Harbans, Bal Kishan, Jagdish and Bed Ram from the side of the accused were caused minor injuries by us in our defence." It is, thus, apparent that there is a deliberate suppression of the genesis and origin of the occurrence by the complainant. How is it possible that Ram Sarup does not know as to whether any injuries were suffered by the appellants party when he also knew that Harbans, son of Kanhaiya, was killed and he along with his other co-accused was facing trial under Section 302, IPC for causing the said murder? PW-4-the complainant, however, has contradicted PW3 by admitting that although they had caused injuries to the appellants party but injuries were only minor in nature. This version of her is belied by the medico-legal reports of deceased Harbans and Bal Kishan as well as Jagdish who suffered multiple injuries.Thirdly, as per the complaint. Bhola Ram son of Roopan along with his brother Hukam Chand had allegedly witnessed the occurrence, however, only one of them, PW-6 (Bhola Ram) was examined as a witness while leading pre-charge evidence. But while leading the post-charge evidence even said Bhola Ram was not produced giving rise to the suspicion that he had been subjected to cross-examination, his version would have demolished the prosecution case. Fourthly, it cannot be overlooked that the occurrence took place on 25-11-1996, one version of which led to the registration of FIR No. 492, dated 25-11-1996. P. S. Sadar, Palwal under Sections 148, 149, 302, 326, 324, 323 and 506, IPC in which Ram Sarup-husband of the complainant and their son Mahender were also facing trial. Fourthly, it cannot be overlooked that the occurrence took place on 25-11-1996, one version of which led to the registration of FIR No. 492, dated 25-11-1996. P. S. Sadar, Palwal under Sections 148, 149, 302, 326, 324, 323 and 506, IPC in which Ram Sarup-husband of the complainant and their son Mahender were also facing trial. The complaint was, however, filed by Smt. Indrawati after a long delay on 1-4-1997 only apparently as a counter-blast to the aforementioned police case. Fifthly, the version in the Rapat No. 22 got entered by Ram Sarup in P.S. Sadar Palwal is also different to what has been mentioned in the complaint. The presence of Indrawati-the complainant or Mahender s/o Ram Sarup in the fields when the alleged occurrence took place, does not find mention in the Rapat No. 22 referred to above and it appears that their presence was subsequently introduced in the complaint only to plant them as eye-witnesses. 10. It is mentioned in the complaint and has been stated by Ram Sarup (PW3) and Smt. Indrawati (PW-4) also that when the appellants allegedly attacked Ram Sarup, he started running towards the village andd reached the main street of the village within a few minutes. It clearly depicts that the fields of Ram Sarup are very close to the village. It thus appears that though the dispute between the two groups originated in the fields of Ram Sarup but the actual fight between them took place after 4-5 minutes in the street in front of the baithak of Harbans where both the parties attacked each other with lathis and ballams. Since the reasons referred to above have caused serious doubts in our mind regarding the place of occurrence suggested by the complainant, namely, the fields owned by Ram Sarup where he alleged to have suffered injuries also and the presence of all the appellants who caused those alleged injuries to Ram Sarup at that point of time, also suffers with uncertainty and in view of the fact that PW-3 and PW-4 have contradicted themselves and the other material eye-witnesses have not been examined, the prosecution, in our view, has failed to prove its charges beyond any doubts, therefore, while extending the benefit of doubt, we acquit the appellants of the charges. Since they are already enlarged on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged unless they are required to be taken into custody in some other case. 11. From the averments made in Cri. Misc. No. 30905-M of 1999 which was moved in this case by one Rajesh s/o Ganga Parsad, it appears that on 29-10-2000 murder of Mahender, son of Ram Sarup, was also committed and in relation to the said occurrence, there are two versions, namely, one contained in FIR No. 696, dated 29-10-2000. P. S. City Palwal under Section 302, 307, 148, 149, IPC and the other in a complaint case titled "Rajesh v. Het Ram" in which the accused were summoned by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal vide his order dated 13-5-2002. As an abudant pre caution, we clarify that our observations made hereinabove shall have no bearing on these cases arising out of a subsequent occurrence and the concerned Court in these cases shall proceed in accordance with law.