Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is State appeal, filed under Section 378 Cr. P. C. against acquittal of the respondents in Sessions Trial no. 109/84 for the offences under Sections 147,148,324,307/149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, vide judgment dated 28. 2. 1995. ( 2. ) AS per prosecution story, complainant matadin had taken loan of Rs. 100 and grams weighing 6 Paceri (30 Kg.) from jagannath Rawat. Jagannath Rawat used to make demand from the complainant. Matadin was not in a position to return back the loan, therefore, he was praying for pardon and thereafter Matadin left the village due to fear of Jagannath and went to banmore, A month before 13. 11. 1983 he came back to village Runipur. At about 4. 00 p. m. Jagannath carrying, muzzle loaded gun, Puran carrying barchi, harpal (deceased) carrying lathi, Heera (deceased)carrying lathi and Rajaram carrying farsa in their hand came and demanded money and grams from Matadin. Matadin refused to give. At the same time, Tularam and soneram, brothers of Matadin came there. Tularam said that he will arrange the money and grams and return back. On this jagannath fired on Tularam by his muzzle loaded gun, which hit the nose and passed through. At the same time, Puran caused injury to Tularam by Barchi in the palm of left hand and Rajaram caused farsa injury to Soneram in his head. Harpal caused injury to Matadin by lathi in his right shoulder. . Heera also caused injury to Matadin by lathi in his chest. Ramcharan and Murari came on spot for their help. Thereafter, matadin lodged report at Police Station jora. Crime was registered, Matadin was referred for medical examination, matter was investigated and charge sheet was filed. ( 3. ) IN the trial, the trial Court found that in the same incident Harpal died, jagannath and Puran received injuries and for that a criminal case has been registered against Matadin and his brothers Tularam, soneram, Banwari, Feran and Shobharam. From the accused side another Matadin also received injuries from hand grand but from the prosecution case Matadin (PW2), tularam (PW3) and Soneram (PW4) have not explained injuries received by the accused persons. From the accused side another Matadin also received injuries from hand grand but from the prosecution case Matadin (PW2), tularam (PW3) and Soneram (PW4) have not explained injuries received by the accused persons. On the contrary, all the aforesaid three witnesses, who are the members of one family and having inimical relations with the respondents accused, have deposed that they have not seen the injuries on the body of the respondents. Therefore, the trial Court has not placed reliance on the prosecution evidence on the ground that the evidence of all the three witnesses is not corroborated by any other independent evidence, they have suppressed the material facts of the incident and have not explained the injuries of the respondents accused persons, thus, acquitted the respondents against which, the State has preferred this appeal after obtaining leave. ( 4. ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. ( 5. ) THE sole question in this appeal is that where it is proved that the respondents have also received injuries in the same incident and one person Harpal died and the complainant party is facing charge of the death of that person then on that admitted position unless the injury received by the accused persons is explained, whether the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be said to be reliable. It appears that either they are telling lie or trying to suppress the material fact of the incident. Matadin (PW2)has clearly admitted that in the same incident Harpal died, Jagannath and Puran had also received injuries and he is facing the charge of his death and injury. His brothers Tularam (PW3) and Soneram (PW4), banwari, Feran and Shobharam have also admitted that they are also facing criminal charge. Therefore, it is true that the prosecution witnesses in this case were involved in hiding the truth from the Court and they have not explained the injuries received by the deceased and on that ground if the trial court has discarded their evidence then certainly trial Court has not committed any illegality in discarding their evidence and also acquitting the respondents on that ground. ( 6. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant State could not satisfy us as to how the evidence of Matadin (PW2), Tularam (PW3) and soneram (PW4) is at all reliable as an independent evidence when they were not narrating the truth before the Court. From the prosecution evidence it is a case of quarrel between the parties. It is not a case that one party was the assailant and another was innocent but it is a case in which there was free fight between both the parties. From the prosecution evidence it is clear that the injuries received by the accused persons in the same incident were more serious in which one person died and they were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The non-explanation can be considered as fatal. Therefore, it cannot be held that the injuries were such that the prosecution was not obliged to explain them. ( 7. ) IN case of Shivkaran v. State of rajasthan, it was held by the Supreme court that the injuries suffered by accused not explained, injuries were not superficial, absence of explanation offered for injuries makes the prosecution case doubtful, accused entitled to be acquitted giving benefit of doubt. In case of Lakshmi Singh v. State of Biharthe Supreme Court has held as under: "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. 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. " ( 8. 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. " ( 8. ) THEREFORE, considering the aforesaid principle it is clear that in this case one person from the accused side died but the cause of death or the injuries received by the respondents were not explained, which has made the case of the prosecution totally doubtful. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the prosecution version and granted benefit of doubt to the respondents. It was considered as a legal lacunae, fatal to the prosecution. Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter, finding recorded by the trial court is not liable to be reversed in an appeal against acquittal. It is the settled law that in an appeal against acquittal finding cannot be reversed unless they are perverse. When two views are possible from the evidence on record, in that case also no interference can be made in appeal. ( 9. ) THUS, we do not find any case for interference. This appeal is accordingly dismissed, appeal dismissed.