Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. Appellant no. 1 Ram Bilas Yadav has been convicted under Ss. 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months u/s. 147 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for 6 months u/s. 323 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. 2. Appellant no. 3 Sargun Yadav has been convicted under Ss. 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo 6 months under Ss. 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months u/s. 148 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for one year u/s. 324 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. 3. Appellant no. 4 Arjun Yadav was convicted u/s. 147 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months. 4. Appellant no. 5 Prabhash Yadav was convicted under Ss. 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months u/s. 148 of the Indian Penal Code and further R.I. for one year u/s. 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. However, all the sentenced were ordered to run concurrently. 6. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 26.6.1987 at 11 A.M. in village Balua-Satdhara Baihiyar, as alleged, the accused persons were dismantling the ridge of the field of Satto Devi which was cultivated by the informant on BHAULI and they were trying to amalgamate the said land in their land. It has been stated that the informant along with his sons and nephew went to the place of occurrence and protested against cutting the ridge, thereupon the appellant Rambilas ordered other accused persons to kill the prosecution party. Thereafter the accused Sargun Yadav gave farsa blow and accused Prabhash Yadav assaulted him on his head with GARASA. When the informant wanted to save himself warding of the blow he received injury on his hand. It has been alleged that accused Banarsi Yadav gave a lathi blow on his arm. After receiving farsa blow he became unconscious and fell down. When his brother and sons came there to save him they were also assaulted by the accused persons by means of farsa, garasa and lathi. Thereafter the informant was taken to hospital for his treatment. It has been alleged that accused Banarsi Yadav gave a lathi blow on his arm. After receiving farsa blow he became unconscious and fell down. When his brother and sons came there to save him they were also assaulted by the accused persons by means of farsa, garasa and lathi. Thereafter the informant was taken to hospital for his treatment. It has also been stated that the occurrence was seen by the witnesses Jagdish Yadav, Sital Yadav and Gujali Yadav. It has been stated that the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at Amarpur block and on the basis of which a formal F.I.R. was registered. The Police started investigation and after completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted, and accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 7. The appellants pleaded not guilty and have stated that they have falsely been implicated in this case due to enmity. 8. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined altogether 10 witnesses. P.W. 1 is Sital Yadav. He claims to be the eye witness of the occurrence. P.W. 2 is Dr. Kashinath Jha. He examined the injured. P.W. 3 is Jagdish Yadav. P.W. 4 is Basudeo Yadav. P.W. 5 is Prakash Yadav. P.W. 6 is Japo Yadav. He claims to be the eye witness of the occurrence. P.W. 7 is Chhathu Yadav., P.W. 8 is Basant Yadav, the informant of this case, injured. P.W. 9 is Gujali Yadav. He also claims to be the eye witness of the occurrence and P.W. 10 is Ram Bihari Singh, the Investigating Officer of this case. 9. The defence has also examined three witnesses. D.W. 1 is Pravash Yadav. D.W. 2 is Pradeep Kumar Thakur. He is a formal witness and he has proved Exts. D. & G., sale deeds and D.W. 3 is Dashrath Chaudhary. He is also a formal witness and he has proved Ext. D/1, Sale deed, Ext. E, rent receipt and Ext. F, Cancellation deed. 10. P.W. 1 Sital Yadav has fully supported the case of prosecution. He has stated that when he was ploughing his field he saw that the ridge of the land of Basant Yadav which he had taken from Sato Devi, was being damaged by the accused persons. D/1, Sale deed, Ext. E, rent receipt and Ext. F, Cancellation deed. 10. P.W. 1 Sital Yadav has fully supported the case of prosecution. He has stated that when he was ploughing his field he saw that the ridge of the land of Basant Yadav which he had taken from Sato Devi, was being damaged by the accused persons. According to him when Basant Yadav came and protested the accused Rambilas Yadav ordered to assault him thereupon the accused Sargun Yadav gave farsa blow on his head. Accused Banarsi Yadav assaulted him with the blunt portion of farsa. He became unconscious and fell down. He has stated that the son and nephew of the informant were also assaulted by the accused persons with their respective weapons. In his cross-examination he has stated that he is an accused in the counter case. 11. P.W. 2 is Dr. Kashi Nath Jha. According to him on 26.6.87 he examined Basant Yadav and found the following injuries on his person: I. Lacerated wound upon the head 2"x1/2"x1/4" II. Opinion reserved for the report of x-ray upon the right and left forearm. III. Three bruises upon the back 4"x1 " According to the opinion of doctor, injury nos. 1 and 3 were simple, caused by hard and blunt substance which may be lathi. On the same day he also examined Prakash Yadav and found the following injuries on his person: (i) Sharp lacerated wound upto the head 1/4" diameter-simple in nature caused by hard blunt substance like lathi. He also examined Jhappo Yadav and found the following injuries on his person: (i) Lacerated wound upon the head 2" x 1/2" x 1/4" nature of injury was simple caused by hard blunt substance. He also examined Chhote Yadav and found the following injury on his person: (i) Incised wound upon the left thigh 1 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/4"-nature of injury was simple caused by sharp cutting weapon like farsa/sword. He also examined Basudeo Yadav and found the following injuries on his person: (i) Lacerated wound upon the head 1 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/4". (ii) Swelling upon arm - simple in nature caused by hard blunt substance like lathi. He also examined the accused persons who were in the same hospital. He examined accused Rambilas Yadav and found the following injuries on his person: (i) Cut of olioranion process of ulna of left hand. (ii) Swelling upon arm - simple in nature caused by hard blunt substance like lathi. He also examined the accused persons who were in the same hospital. He examined accused Rambilas Yadav and found the following injuries on his person: (i) Cut of olioranion process of ulna of left hand. (ii) Incised wound upto the left forearm 1 " x 1 "x 1/2". (iii) Lacerated wound upto the head 1"x1/2"x1/2". According to the opinion of the doctor the nature of injury no. (i) was grievous caused by sharp cutting weappn like sword/ farsa. Injury no. (ii) was simple caused by sword/farsa and injury no. (iii) was also simple caused by hard blunt substance like lathi. On the same day he also examined accused Prabhas Chandra Yadav and found the following injuries on his person: (i) Incised wound right lateral position of neck 2"x1/2"x skin deep. (ii) Incised wound upon right forearm 2"x1"x1/2". (iii) Lacerated wound back of right ear 1 "x1/2"x1 /4". (iv) Tip of the right pine cut. According to the opinion of the doctor injury nos. 1, 2 and 4 were simple in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon like sword/farsa. Injury no. 3 was simple caused by hard blunt substance like lathi. He also examined the accused Arjun Yadav and found the following injuries on his person: (i) Lacerated wound upon the head 2" x 1/2" x 1/4". (ii) Lacerated wound upon the back 2" x 1/2" x 1/4". The Injuries were simple caused by hard blunt substance like lathi. He also examined the accused Banarsi Yadav and found the following injuries on his person: (i) Incised wound upon the head 3" x 1/2" x 1/4" and 2" x 1/2" x 1/4". (ii) One pointing wound upon the left forearm 1/2" round. (iii) Distal phalanges of middle and ring finger left hand nail was cut from the middle. (iv) Lacerated wound upon the sole of left leg. Injury nos. 1 & 3 were caused by sharp cutting wound like sword/farsa. Injury no. 2 was caused by bhala and injury no. 4 may be caused by lathi. 12 P.W. 3 is Jagdish Yadav. He has stated that when he was taking away the sugarcane from his field at 11 A.M. all the accused persons came there having lathi, bhala, farsa and garasa and they began to cut the ridge of the disputed land. 2 was caused by bhala and injury no. 4 may be caused by lathi. 12 P.W. 3 is Jagdish Yadav. He has stated that when he was taking away the sugarcane from his field at 11 A.M. all the accused persons came there having lathi, bhala, farsa and garasa and they began to cut the ridge of the disputed land. When the informant Basant Yadav along with his brother, nephew and sons came and protested thereupon accused Rambilash Yadav ordered to assault him. The accused Sargun Yadav assaulted him with farsa on his head. Accused Prakash Yadav assaulted him with garasa on his head. Accused Banarsi gave lathi blow and he became unconscious and fell down. When the brother and sons came to save him they were also assaulted by the accused persons with their respective weapons. In his cross-examination he has stated that he and his father are accused in a counter case. 13. P.W. 4 Basudeo Yadav, P.W. 5 Prakash Yadav, P.W. 6 Japo Yadav, P.W. 7 Chhathu Yadav and P.W. 9 Gujali Yadav all have supported and corroborated the prosecution case. 14. P.W. 8 is Basant Yadav, the informant of this case. According to him, the occurrence took place at 11 A.M. At that time he was at his house. He heard that the ridge of his land was being demolished by the accused Prabhash Yadav, Rambilash Yadav, Sargun Yadav, Banarsi Yadav. He along with his brother, sons and nephew went to the place of occurrence. According to him, the accused Rambilash ordered to kill him thereupon the accused Prabhash gave farsa blow on his head. Accused Sargun Yadav also gave garasa blow on his head. Accused Banarsi assaulted him with blunt portion of farsa. They also assaulted his sons, brother and nephew. Thereafter he was taken to Amarpur Police Station where his fard beyan was recorded and he put his thumb impression over it. He has stated that the land belonged to Sato Devi and he was cultivating the same on bhauli. The accused persons had no concern with the said land. He has further stated that he had grown RAHAR crop over it. In his cross-examination he has stated that the accused persons are his GOTIA. 15. P.W. 10 Ram Bihari is the Investigating Officer of this case. The accused persons had no concern with the said land. He has further stated that he had grown RAHAR crop over it. In his cross-examination he has stated that the accused persons are his GOTIA. 15. P.W. 10 Ram Bihari is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has stated that he recorded the fard beyan of the informant and inspected the place of occurrence. However, in his cross-examination he has stated that he lodged Amarpur P.S. Case No. 132 of 1987 on the basis of fardbeyan of Basant Yadav. He also got the injuries memo prepared for the injured persons and got the case investigated and submitted chargesheet. He has also stated that the place of occurrence of both the cases were the same. According to him the accused Prabhash Chandra Yadav had shown him the papers with regard to the disputed land. 16. D.W. 1 is Pravash Yadav. According to him, on the date of occurrence he was in his field and he heard hulla that some cattle were grazing the RAHAR crop of his field. He along with his father Banarsi and others, namely, Rambilas and Arjun went to the field and saw that the cattle were grazing RAHAR crop which was grown by him in the field. Thereafter, he took the cattle out from the RAHAR field. The prosecution party came there and assaulted him. He has stated that he was assaulted by Basant with sword on his neck and Japo assaulted him with farsa on his hand. He has also claimed the disputed land was in his possession and sale deed was also in possession. 17. D.W. 2 is Pradeep Kumar Thakur. He is a formal witness and he has proved Exts. D. & G., sale deeds. 18. D.W. 3 is Dashrath Chaudhary. He is also a formal witness and he has proved Ext. D/1, Sale deed, Ext. E, rent receipt and Ext. F, Cancellation deed. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained on the ground that the defence had not taken the plea of private defence in the Court below. However, in view of the evidence laid down by the defence regarding possession and title of land {i.e. Exts. D & D/1 and Exts. E, F & G) and also the suggestion given to the prosecution witnesses regarding the fact that prosecution party being aggressor. However, in view of the evidence laid down by the defence regarding possession and title of land {i.e. Exts. D & D/1 and Exts. E, F & G) and also the suggestion given to the prosecution witnesses regarding the fact that prosecution party being aggressor. The Court below was not justified in holding that defence has not taken the plea of right of private defence. In support of his submission he has relied on a decision of Apex Court in Krishnan V/s. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2006 SC 3037 in which it was held that the accused need not take plea of private defence explicitly, rather the accused has to establish that his action was in exercise of right of private defence. The same can be established either by examining defence witnesses or from the averment of prosecution evidence itself. 20. The case in hand suggestion was put forth to show that prosecution party was aggressor. It was also proved by the defence witnesses that land in dispute where occurrence took place belonged to Ram Bilas Yadav and he had valid title over it and RAHAR crop was also grown in the said land which was being destroyed by the cattle of the informant. That apart the appellants in their statement u/s. 313 Cr. P.C. have also stated that the prosecution party got the RAHAR crop grazed which was grown by them. In that view of the matter, assertion of Court below was not reasonable that since the right of private defence has not taken from before it was not to be considered. On this plea the Court should not have rejected the defence case. 21. The evidence of witnesses and circumstances on which the accused relied on, make out a case of private defence. It has further been submitted that P.W. 4 Basudeo Yadav has already admitted that he saw injury on the person of the appellant Ram Bilas Yadav, Prabhash Yadav, Arjun Yadav and Banarsi Yadav. The prosecution was bound to have explained the injuries on them and that has not been done which creates doubt about the prosecution story. The prosecution thus has not come with clean hands. 22. From the evidence of P.W. 2 Dr. The prosecution was bound to have explained the injuries on them and that has not been done which creates doubt about the prosecution story. The prosecution thus has not come with clean hands. 22. From the evidence of P.W. 2 Dr. Kashinath Jha it is evidently clear that the accused Ram Bilas Yadav was also examined by P.W. 2 was having three incised and cut injuries which was found grievous in nature. Even accused Banarsi Yadav was having incised wound on his person. All the accused persons got injuries on their persons. There is also a counter case filed by appellant Pravash Yadav which is Ext. B which shows that these persons sustained injuries in the same occurrence for which this case has been filed by the informant. It is well settled that when prosecution does not come with clean hand and it suppresses the injuries on the person of injured accused the case of prosecution becomes doubtful. 23. Considering the aforesaid submissions and discussions made above, I am of the view that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the appellants deserve benefit of doubts. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 24. The conviction and sentence passed by the Court below are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. They are directed to be set at liberty.