Judgment ( 1. ) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, shajapur in S. T. No. 118/93 on dated 4-7-1994 holding appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC respectively and sentenced them to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- each, this appeal has been preferred. ( 2. ) SHORT facts of the case are, that, on 1-10-1992 at about 7:00 p. m. in the evening, when complainant Devilal was coming back from milk dairy, then he was intercepted by both the appellants, who were having canes in their hands both appellants caught hold of him, and uttered that, "you have beaten our nephew and now we will kill you", thereafter, appellant Ganga Prasad wielded a knife from his pocket and caused an injury on the back of the complainant, when complainant screamed, then his father Motilal came there, but appellants caused injuries to Motilal also. Jagannath, Devisingh Tilod, Jaswant Singh,kumer Singh and other persons also gathered there, and on their intervention matter was pacified. Then incident was reported to the police by way of First information Report (Exh. P-6 ). Injured persons were sent for their medical examination. During investigation one knife was recovered from appellant ganga Prasad by seizure memo (Exh. P-16), after getting discloser statement (Exh. P-18 ). Witnesses were also interrogated by the police under Section 161 of Cr. PC and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed. ( 3. ) BEFORE Trial Court appellants pleaded innocence and claimed false implication on account of previous enmity. They had also taken specific defence that on the date of incident also the complainant party was the aggressor and injuries to persons belonging to the family of the appellants were caused by them. ( 4. ) AFTER trial learned Trial Court found appellants guilty under sections 324 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC respectively and sentenced as stated hereinabove. ( 5. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant Shri N. P. Pandey contended that the complainant party was the aggressor in this incident and the place of the incident was also the house of the appellants. The evidence was not properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court, therefore, appellants were wrongly held guilty by the Trial Court. He has. ( 5. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant Shri N. P. Pandey contended that the complainant party was the aggressor in this incident and the place of the incident was also the house of the appellants. The evidence was not properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court, therefore, appellants were wrongly held guilty by the Trial Court. He has. further submitted that first of all appellant accused Ganga Prasad lodged the report of this incident to the police. Both appellants were medical examined, thereafter, in their defence the complainant party also lodged the report. Report lodged by appellants was also called by learned Trial Court during trial, but, thereafter, without properly appreciating the evidence appellants were held guilty. ( 6. ) PER contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is sufficient evidence available on record to hold that appellants have caused injuries by means of sharp cutting object to complainant Devilal and his father motilal and, therefore, no mistake was committed by learned Trial Court in holding them guilty. ( 7. ) DR. Prabhakar (P. W. 1) is the Medical Officer who examined injured persons belonging to both the parties. As per the prosecution case complainant Devilal and his father Motilal sustained injuries in this incident. This witness Dr. Prabhakar on medical examination found that complainant devilal was having one incised wound measuring 1" x 1/4" x 1/4" on his back and for which he was referred to District Hospital, Rajgarh. The X-ray report of devilal shows that no body injury was found in his body, therefore, the injury sustained was simple in nature. His father Motilal also sustained four incised wounds measuring (i) 1" x 1/10" x 1/10", (ii) 1" x 1/10" x 1/10", (iii) 3/4" x 1/10" x 1/10" and (iv) 1/2" x 1/10" x 1/10" on his right side of chest, chests left side, left arm and back respectively and all these injuries were simple in nature. ( 8. ) THIS witness further deposed that on the same day he had also examined appellant Ganga Prasad s/o Shankar Lal and found that there was a lacerated wound on his head measuring 11/2" x 1/10" x 1/10" with clotted blood. He was also having a contusion on his back left side measuring 2" x 1/2". Both these injuries were simple in nature. He was also having a contusion on his back left side measuring 2" x 1/2". Both these injuries were simple in nature. Appellant No. 2 Prabhulal was also having one lacerated wound measuring 1" x 1/4" x 1/10" on his head in middle with clotted blood, there was also a contusion measuring 2" x 1" on his left shoulder and another contusion measuring 1" x 1/2" on his left elbow joint. There was forth injury also which was abrasion of 1/2" x 1/4" on his back. Apart from these appellants, father of the appellant No. 2 Prabhulal namely Kaniram s/o Dola, was also having four injuries on his person. One abrasion measuring 1/4" x 1/4" on his head. Another abrasion of 1/2" x 1/10" on his right shoulder and two contusions 1" x 1/2" and 1/4" x 1/10" respectively on his left thigh and on back to the left hand. These injuries were also simple in nature. ( 9. ) THEREFORE, as per the statement of Medical Officer both the appellants were having head injuries, coupled with another injuries, on their persons, and the father of the appellant No. 2 was also injured, having as many as four injuries. Apart from this fact, as per the statement given by complainant devilal (P. W. 2) himself the place of the incident was near the house of the appellants. The spot map (Exh. P-11) drawn by Investigating Officer Ganesh sharma (P. W. 6) also shows that place of the incident was just in front of the house of appellant Ganga Prasad and was on the way towards the house of complainant Devilal. ( 10. ) REGARDING incident, Devilal (P. W. 2), Motilal (P. W. 3), Devi Singh (P. W. 4) and Jaswant Singh (P. W. 5) were examined before the Trial Court. Out of these witnesses independent witnesses Devi Singh (P. W. 4) and Jaswant singh (P. W. 5) have been declared hostile. Both of them have not supported the case of prosecution, therefore, the entire case of prosecution hinges only on the statements given by injured Devilal (P. W. 2) and his father injured Motilal (P. W. 3 ). Out of these witnesses independent witnesses Devi Singh (P. W. 4) and Jaswant singh (P. W. 5) have been declared hostile. Both of them have not supported the case of prosecution, therefore, the entire case of prosecution hinges only on the statements given by injured Devilal (P. W. 2) and his father injured Motilal (P. W. 3 ). Both these witnesses supported the prosecution story and stated that injury by means of knife were inflicted by appellant Ganga Prasad to Devilal and at that time appellant Prabhulal was catching hold of Devilal and when Motilal (P. W. 3)came there in his rescue then appellant No. 1 Ganga Prasad inflicted injuries to him also by means of knife. But both these witnesses said nothing regarding injuries sustained by appellant and father of appellant No. 2 have failed to give any explanation of those injuries. Both of them were given suggestions to that effect, that, they were aggressor, and they caused injuries also to the father of appellant No. 2, such suggestion was denied by them. The Investigating Officer ganesh Sharma (P. W. 6) has admitted in his cross-examination that on 1-10-1992 appellant No. 1 Ganga Prasad lodged a report against Devilal s/o motilal and his father Motilal. The report was written in Rojnamcha at Sr. No. 36, but no offence was registered on the basis of the report. The report (Exh. P-2) was produced before Court. From Exh. P-2, it appears that appellant No. 1 ganga Prasad lodged that report at 9:15 p. m. whereas complainant Devilal lodged report (Exh. P-6) at 11:00 p. m. So the First Information Report of appellant No. 1 Ganga Prasad was first in time. In report (Exh. P-2) it has been clearly stated that the complainant Devilal, Mohanlal s/o Babu and Durga s/o babulal first of all caused injuries to Prabhulal and thereafter to Ganga Prasad and Kashiram also. On the basis of this report injured persons were sent for medical examination and, therefore, it is apparent that the appellants were first in time in lodging report. Appellants and father of appellant No. 2 also sustained injuries and such injuries were on vital part of body, i. e. , on their head. On the basis of this report injured persons were sent for medical examination and, therefore, it is apparent that the appellants were first in time in lodging report. Appellants and father of appellant No. 2 also sustained injuries and such injuries were on vital part of body, i. e. , on their head. When no explanation of these injuries was given by the complainant and his father then it will become clear the complainant and his father are telling a lie on such a vital aspect of the matter, therefore, their statement cannot be believed. In this regard, it will be useful to have a look on the law laid down by Honble Supreme court in the case of Laxmi Singh Vs. State of Bihar ( AIR 1976 SC 2263 ), wherein in Paragraph 11, Honble Supreme Court has observed thus :- "it seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences:- (1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore, their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. That the omission on the part of the prosecution, to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. " ( 11. ) IN my view the first two inferences can safely drawn in the instant case. Though in the report lodged by the appellant no explanation was given regarding injuries suffered by the victim, but in my view the falsity of the defence would not mean that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. " ( 11. ) IN my view the first two inferences can safely drawn in the instant case. Though in the report lodged by the appellant no explanation was given regarding injuries suffered by the victim, but in my view the falsity of the defence would not mean that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The prosecution has to give explanation of the injuries found on vital part of accused persons by some evidence to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, but it cannot prove its case by default. In my view the probability that the appellants and the members of their party were first assaulted by prosecution witnesses and thereafter, they assaulted in exercise of right of their private defence cannot be ruled out. It can be said that both prosecution and defence are coming out with untruthful version, that which side was aggressor. In such a situation it is open to the Court to decide as to how the incident took place. The Court cannot make out its own new case and since in the instant case both the prosecution and defence are coming out with untruthful version and it is not possible to know the reality of the incident, as to which party was the aggressor, so the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellants. ( 12. ) THEREFORE, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The appellants are acquitted from the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 324/34, IPC respectively. Amount of fine if deposited by them be refunded. Criminal Appeal allowed.