Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. The appellants along with Manjit Singh were initially sought to be prosecuted for offences under Sections 307/308/326/325/324/323 read with Section 34 IPC. Accordingly, the case was committed to the Court of Session, where, on account of non-appearance of Manjit Singh, warrants of arrest were initially issued and finally, he was declared a proclaimed offender on 23.9.1993. The appellants were, thereafter, charged for offences under Sections 308/326/324/323/34 IPC by Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala on 15.9.2004, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summed up as follows : The alleged occurrence had taken place on 12.11.1992 at about 10.00 a.m. in the area of Village Jhal Leiwala, wherein, Jagtar Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and their father Bachan Singh received injuries. Statement (Exhibit PM) of Mukhtiar Singh was recorded by Sub-Inspector Surinder Singh on 13.11.1992 at 7.40 a.m. in Civil Hospital, Sultanpur Lodhi, on the basis of which, formal FIR (Exhibit PM-2) came to be recorded in Police Station, Sultanpur Lodhi on the same day at 8.15 a.m. It was stated by Mukhtiar Singh that he was resident of Village Jhal Leiwala and was an agriculturist by profession. On the previous day at about 10.00 a.m., he along with his brother Jagtar Singh and father Bachan Singh went to his fields to sow wheat crop. When they started sowing the crop, he saw that Manjit Singh accused had sown wheat crop in his fields by ploughing the boundary line. Mukhtiar Singh stopped his tractor and enquired from Manjit Singh as to why he had sown the wheat crop in his fields by ploughing the boundary line. On this, Manjit Singh, accused armed with kirpan, Jarnail Singh and Narinder Singh, accused with a dang each and Balwinder Singh, accused armed with an iron rod came there shouting. Manjit Singh raised an alarm that Mukhtiar Singh be caught hold of and taught a lesson. Saying this, Manjit Singh gave kirpan blows on his right arm, thumb and right leg, Balwinder Singh, accused then wielded his iron rod twice in giving blows to Mukhtiar Singh on his left leg and ankle. As a result of this, Mukhtiar Singh fell down. He was given more injuries on the back of his shoulder. Saying this, Manjit Singh gave kirpan blows on his right arm, thumb and right leg, Balwinder Singh, accused then wielded his iron rod twice in giving blows to Mukhtiar Singh on his left leg and ankle. As a result of this, Mukhtiar Singh fell down. He was given more injuries on the back of his shoulder. He raised an alarm which attracted his father Bachan Singh and his brother Jagtar Singh to the spot from the place, where, they were working in the fields. Jarnail Singh, accused gave dang blows to Bachan Singh, hitting him on his head and neck. Jarnail Singh gave two more dang blows on his back and abdomen. Manjit Singh gave a kirpan blow to Jagtar Singh, hitting him on his right cheek. Narinder Singh gave a dang blow hitting Jagtar Singh on his right index finger. Jarnail Singh gave two dang blows on the right arm and back of the shoulder of Jagtar Singh. One Mohan Singh, Member Panchayat also reached there and saw the occurrence. He was able to rescue the injured from the assailants, who then ran away from the spot while carrying their weapons and raising lalkaras. 3. The cause of the quarrel was that the accused persons had sown wheat crop forcibly in the fields of the complainant and when the complainant party tried to stop them, the occurrence ensued. 4. All the three injured were removed to Civil Hospital, Sultanpur Lodhi, where, they were examined by Dr. Prem Parkash. Jagtar Singh, injured was medically examined on 12.11.1992 at 11.30 a.m. and he was found to have received nine injuries. Out of them injury No. 1 was incised in nature on the right cheek while remaining eight injuries were the result of blunt weapons. On receipt of x-ray report, the doctor declared injury No. 1 to be grievous while the remaining injuries were found to be simple in nature. Mukhtiar Singh, injured was examined on the same day at 12.00 noon and found to be a recipient of ten injuries, three of which were incised in nature and the other blunt weapon injuries. Injury No. 1 was later on, declared to be grievous while rest of the injuries were simple. Similarly, Bachan Singh injured was also medically examined on the same day at 12.30 p.m. and found to be having five injuries on his person. Injury No. 1 was later on, declared to be grievous while rest of the injuries were simple. Similarly, Bachan Singh injured was also medically examined on the same day at 12.30 p.m. and found to be having five injuries on his person. All of them were caused by blunt weapons. Injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together were declared dangerous to life. 5. During the investigation of the case, the accused were arrested. Kirpan (Exhibit P-8) was recovered at the instance of Manjit Singh, accused. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted by Sub-Inspector Surinder Singh. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1, Dr. Prem Parkash who deposed about the injuries found on the persons of Jagtar Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and their father Bachan Singh. The said doctor, during his cross- examination stated about the injuries noticed by him on the accused side. PW-2 Tarsem Singh, Revenue Patwari proved the scaled site plan (Exhibit PJ) prepared by him at the instance of the police on 14.5.1993 after going to the spot. PW-3 Mukhtiar Singh, PW-4 Jagtar Singh and PW-5 Bachan Singh deposed about the ocular account of the incident. PW-6 Dr. Swaran Singh stated about having conducted x-rays of injuries of Jagtar Singh and Mukhtiar Singh. PW-7 Robin G. Ram, Deputy Medical Record Officer, C.M.C., Ludhiana produced the summoned record of Bachan Singh, injured who remained admitted in the hospital from 12.11.1992 to 20.11.1992. PW-8 Sub-Inspector Surinder Singh stated about the recording of the statement (Exhibit PM) of Mukhtiar Singh PW-3, various steps taken during the investigation of the case and also about the arrest of Manjit Singh, accused besides recovery of kirpan (Exhibit P-8). PW-9 Dr. Lajpat Rai stated about operating upon Bachan Singh for extra dural haematoma. Injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3 noticed by him were declared dangerous to life, while injury No. 4 as simple. 7. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the correctness of the prosecution allegations and stated that, it was a false case. While Balwinder Singh stated that he was not present at the time of the occurrence, Jarnail Singh and Narinder Singh took up specific plea of self- defence. 7. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the correctness of the prosecution allegations and stated that, it was a false case. While Balwinder Singh stated that he was not present at the time of the occurrence, Jarnail Singh and Narinder Singh took up specific plea of self- defence. The plea taken by Jarnail Singh, accused is as under : "That on 12.11.1992 at about 9.10 a.m. I, Manjit Singh, Narinder Singh were present in our fields, while Amar Kaur and Kulwinder Kaur were also present, who had brought the meals. At that time Mukhtiar Singh armed with dang, Jagtar Singh armed with Gandasi and Bachan Singh armed with dang along with some other persons trespassed into our fields and caused injuries to myself, Narinder Singh, Amar Kaur and Surinder Kaur. I along with Narinder Singh and Manjit Singh also caused injuries to the complainant party in our self- defence. The complainant party was the aggressor. The complainant party had the grudge that we had sown wheat crop in the portion of land which was given by them to us in exchange. Balwinder Singh was not present at the time of the occurrence." 8. Almost identical plea was taken by Narinder Singh, accused. In defence, the accused examined DW-1 Malaka Singh. 9. The trial Court believed the prosecution evidence and rejected the defence plea. Accordingly, vide judgment and order dated 6.10.1995, Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala convicted Jarnail Singh, accused under Section 308 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years, while, Narinder Singh and Balwinder Singh were convicted under Sections 308/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each. All the three appellants were also convicted under Sections 326/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further rigorous imprisonment for one month each. Besides, the appellants were also held guilty under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. All the sentences of the accused were ordered to run concurrently. 10. Aggrieved from the same, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with the assistance rendered by them. 12. All the sentences of the accused were ordered to run concurrently. 10. Aggrieved from the same, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with the assistance rendered by them. 12. Before proceeding any further, the injuries as found on the accused side, may be noticed. Jarnail Singh and Narinder Singh, appellants, besides Amar Kaur wife of Manjit Singh accused and Kulwinder Kaur wife of Jarnail Singh were examined by Dr. Prem Parkash, PW-1. During his cross-examination, the said doctor stated that on 12.11.1992 at 2.00 p.m., he examined Jarnail Singh and found the following injuries on his person : 1. An incised wound 3 cm x .1 cm x .25 cm on palmer aspect of left thenar eminence. He was advised x-ray. 2. An incised wound 3.5 cm x .2 cm x .25 cm on the palmer aspect of hand at the level of index and middle finger of left hand. X-ray was advised. 3. An abrasion with contusion around 4 cm x 2 cm on middle front of right arm, reddish in colour. 4. A contusion 6 cm x 2 cm on right scapular region. Reddish in colour. 5. A contusion 4 cm x 2 cm on right infrascapular region. Reddish in colour. 6. A contusion 7 cm x 2 cm on right iliac region, red in colour. 7. A contusion 6 cm x 3 cm on left iliac region. Red colour. 8. Right thumb was very tender to touch. X-ray was advised. 9. Tenderness of right foot was also there. X-ray was advised. 13. Smt. Amar Kaur was examined at 2.25 p.m. on the same day and the following injuries were noticed on her : 1. A contusion 6 cm x 2 cm on the back of right shoulder region. X- ray was advised. 2. An incised wound 1 cm x .1 cm x .2 cm on the palmer aspect of middle of right ring finger. X-ray was advised. 3. An incised wound 1.5 cm x .2 cm x .2 cm on palmer aspect of middle finger. X-ray was advised. 4. An abrasion .5 cm x .1 cm on palmer aspect of right index finger. 14. Similarly, Kulwinder Kaur wife of Jarnail Singh was examined at 2.30 p.m. on the same day and the following injuries were noticed : 1. An incised wound 1.5 cm x .2 cm x .2 cm on palmer aspect of middle finger. X-ray was advised. 4. An abrasion .5 cm x .1 cm on palmer aspect of right index finger. 14. Similarly, Kulwinder Kaur wife of Jarnail Singh was examined at 2.30 p.m. on the same day and the following injuries were noticed : 1. A contusion, 6 cm x 4 cm on middle outer of right arm, red colour. 2. An abrasion 4 cm x 2 cm on the back of left ankle. Red colour. 15. Last of all, Narinder Singh accused was examined at 2.45 p.m. on the same day and the doctor found two blunt weapon injuries which are as under : 1. A contusion 5 cm x 4 cm on outer of right elbow region, reddish in colour and swelling was present on it. 2. A contusion 5 cm x 4 cm on the back of left hand. It was reddish in colour. 16. The doctor also stated that Jarnail Singh, accused who was examined by him in the first instance at 2.00 p.m. was brought to the hospital at 1.30 p.m. on 12.11.1992 by one Mangat Singh. 17. After deposing about the injuries, found on the accused and their party men, Dr. Prem Parkash, PW-1 also stated that the injuries on them and the prosecution witnesses who were examined by him, could have been caused at one and the same time. 18. As is clear from the above, there were a number of injuries found on the accused side. Out of them, two injuries of Jarnail Singh and two of Smt. Amar Kaur were found to be the result of sharp edged weapons. Once, it is shown that the accused and their party men had received injuries which were found to be of the same duration and as asserted by the accused in their plea that they received injuries at the hands of the complainant party, the Court is required to find out whether the prosecution has led any evidence to explain those injuries. 19. In the initial statement (Exhibit PM) lodged by Mukhtiar Singh, he was totally silent about causing of any injury to the accused party. When he was examined as PW-3, he again did not mention anywhere in his examination-in- chief about causing of injuries to the accused. 19. In the initial statement (Exhibit PM) lodged by Mukhtiar Singh, he was totally silent about causing of any injury to the accused party. When he was examined as PW-3, he again did not mention anywhere in his examination-in- chief about causing of injuries to the accused. During his cross-examination, he stated that he did not see Jarnail Singh, Manjeet Kaur and others in the hospital during the period of six days which he spent in the hospital. He denied the suggestion that the factum of causing injuries suffered by Jarnail Singh and others had been concealed. Jagtar Singh, PW-4 was categorical in his cross-examination that his party did not cause injuries to the accused and Balwinder Kaur and Amar Kaur at that time. Bachan Singh, PW-5, when asked about the injuries of the accused, stated that as he and his companions were unarmed and they did not cause injuries to the accused. Thus, we do not find any explanation of the prosecution on the record regarding the injuries found on the persons of Jarnail Singh and Narinder Singh, accused besides the two ladies belonging to the said party. Mere fact that all the injuries on the persons of the accused party were declared simple in nature, is no ground to ignore them. After receiving injuries, even though they were simple in nature, the accused could exercise the right of self-defence of person by inflicting injuries on their opponents but they could not cause any injury resulting in death. The act of the appellants in causing the injuries is squarely covered by the provisions of Section 101 IPC. 20. It was not required from the accused that they were to file a criminal complaint against the complainant party for the injuries received by them or bringing witnesses in support of their pleas at the time of recording of defence evidence when it was clear from the evidence already available on the file that the accused did receive injuries in the occurrence for which the prosecution had no explanation. 21. The non-explanation of injuries of the accused suggests that the prosecution has not come forward with true picture of the genesis of the occurrence. In such a situation, the Court may very well accept the defence plea that the injuries found on the complainant party were caused by the accused in the exercise of right of self-defence of person. 22. The non-explanation of injuries of the accused suggests that the prosecution has not come forward with true picture of the genesis of the occurrence. In such a situation, the Court may very well accept the defence plea that the injuries found on the complainant party were caused by the accused in the exercise of right of self-defence of person. 22. The prosecution has relied upon the statements of only interested and relation witnesses i.e. the testimonies of Mukhtiar Singh, PW-3, Jagtar Singh, PW-4 and Bachan Singh, PW-5. One Mohan Singh was mentioned in statement (Exhibit PM) of having who had arrived at the spot and seeing the occurrence with his own eyes. Said Mohan Singh was not examined by the prosecution in support of its case. He was given up being won over by the accused. It may be that he was not going to support the case of the prosecution on material aspects regarding causing of injuries to the accused. 23. In view of the above, I find that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 24. Consequently, the appeal is accepted. Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges against them.