JUDGMENT Mutum B.K. Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.9.2001 passed in ST. No. 70(NT/D) of 2000 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, convicting and sentencing the appellants to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ each under Section 302, IPC, in default of payment to suffer two years more imprisonment and also to suffer imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 326, IPC, in default of payment of fine to suffer two years more imprisonment. 2. That, facts, leading to this appeal, are that on 3.4.1998 at about 10.35 a.m., one Md. Alauddin, lodged a written report with the Officer-in-Charge, Dharmanagar Police Station alleging that on 2.4.1998 at about 10.30 p.m, the appellant No. 1's vehicle had broken the bamboo fencing of the informant, for which a village meeting along with the Panchayat members and other influential persons was held on 3.4.1998 at his house at about 7.30 a.m. but no decision was taken in the said meeting. At about 9.30 a.m. of the same day, the appellants and four others being armed with various weapons, like dao, lathi, etc., attacked on them in which 4/5 persons sustained severe injuries. On receipt of the report, the investigation was set in motion by registering a case being Dharmanagar P.S. FIR No. 24/1998 under Sections 149/148/326, IPC against the appellants and four others. Subsequently, on the death of Md. Abdul Rouf, Section 302, IPC was also added. After investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 148/149 326/302, IPC was submitted against the six accused persons including the appellants. The learned trial Court framed charges under Sections148/149/326/302, IPC against the appellants and others, to which all of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. That, during the course of trial, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. The defence produced one witness in their support. The learned trial Court, after examining the prosecution witnesses, acquitted the other four accused persons under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and proceeded the trial against the appellants by examining them under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court convicted both the accused persons for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 326, IPC, respectively and sentenced them as stated hereinabove. 4. Heard Mr. 4. Heard Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. That, the appellants' case, as projected by their learned Counsel, is that on 3.4.1998 in the morning at about 9.30 a.m., the appellants, while coming with their vehicle loaded with mud, were detained at the place of occurrence by the Panchayat members directing them not to proceed further till the village meeting (baithak) which was holding relating to the breaking of bamboo fencing on the previous night, was over. After the meeting was over, the deceased Abdul Rouf, Abdul Latif (PW No. 6), Giyas Uddin (PW No. 7), Alauddin (PW No. 1), Md. Ismail Ali (husband of PW No. 5), Nizam Uddin and others came towards the place of occurrence and suddenly attacked the appellants with dao and others by pulling down the appellant No. 1 from his vehicle. Thus, a scuffle took place between the appellants and the deceased's party at the place of occurrence in which the vehicle of the appellant No. 1 was also broken. The appellant No. 1 with the help of jack lever' of the vehicle tried to defend himself but could not resist the attackers. Both the appellants sustained severe injuries on their bodies and ultimately fled away therefrom. Thereafter, a report was lodged with the Dharmanagar Police Station against the said attackers, which was ultimately culminated to Sessions Trial Case No. 69 (NT/D) of 2000 but the attackers were acquitted on account of failure to prove the charges levelled against them. And that, PW Nos. 1, 6, 7 and husband of the PW No. 5 were the accused persons amongst others in the said case. Both the appellants were more than a month in the hospital under treatment. They never attacked the deceased and others except to defend themselves, the deceased and his parties were the attackers who assaulted the appellants with 'Banti dao' and other deadly weapons. The appellants' learned Counsel has also submitted that in the said scuffle some injuries might have caused to the deceased and others while exercising their right of private defence. The learned trial Court completely overlooked the above aspect and passed the impugned judgment by mis-appreciating the evidences on record, the learned Counsel urged. 6. The appellants' learned Counsel has also submitted that in the said scuffle some injuries might have caused to the deceased and others while exercising their right of private defence. The learned trial Court completely overlooked the above aspect and passed the impugned judgment by mis-appreciating the evidences on record, the learned Counsel urged. 6. That, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, reacting to the above contentions advanced by the appellants, submits that the prosecution has clearly established the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code by the appellants. The evidences of the PW Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7 unequivocally prove that the appellants murdered Abdul Rouf and caused grievous injuries to the PW Nos. 6 and 7 and thus, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 7. That, upon hearing the rival submissions for the parties, we have carefully scanned the evidences and other materials available on record in order to satisfy ourselves whether the impugned judgment is sustainable in the eyes of law or not. The star witnesses of the prosecution case are PW Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7. Other witnesses are seizure witnesses, medical officer, a Panchayat member and a villager, who attended the village meeting and the investigating officer. 8. That, PW No. 1 stated that on hearing the hue and cry, he rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the deceased was assaulting by the appellant No. 1 with 'kirich'. The deceased was also assaulted with 'stick', 'dao' etc. by the other accused persons. The deceased was found lying by the side of the road with bleeding injuries and PW Nos. 6 and 7 were fleeing away from the place of occurrence with bleeding injuries. Prior to the incident, there was a village meeting to solve the dispute between himself and the appellant No. 1. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the appellants were also sustained injuries and they were treated in the hospital. There was a land dispute in between the accused persons and the deceased Abdul Rouf. 9. Prior to the incident, there was a village meeting to solve the dispute between himself and the appellant No. 1. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the appellants were also sustained injuries and they were treated in the hospital. There was a land dispute in between the accused persons and the deceased Abdul Rouf. 9. That, PW No. 5 stated that on the date of incident she found the accused persons assaulting the deceased Abdul Rouf, the appellant No. 1 assaulted the deceased with a sharp cutting weapon like 'dagger' and other accused persons had also assaulted him with' lathi' and other weapons. The deceased was trying to resist them with a bamboo stick.' In the cross-examination, she admitted that her husband was an accused person in the counter case filed by the appellants and her husband is the maternal uncle of the informant (PW No. 1). She also admitted that after two months of the incident she met the I.O. though she was all along in her house. Her statement that she had seen the appellant No. 1 giving blows on the victim by weapon like 'dagger' was not found in her statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.PC when confronted. 10. That, PW No. 6 stated that on 3.4.1998 at about 9.00 a.m. he came out from his house on hearing a hue and cry and found that the accused persons assaulting the deceased with 'dagger', 'dao', 'lathi', 'rod' etc., on seeing it, he rushed to resist the accused persons and at that moment the appellant No. 1 gave blows on his head and other parts of his body with sharp cutting weapon. Other accused persons also gave blows on him with 'stick', 'rod', 'dao', in which he sustained bleeding injuries and being afraid fled away from the place of occurrence. He also found PW No. 7 fleeing away from the place of occurrence with bleeding injuries. It is also in his evidence that he was treated first at Dharmanagar Hospital and thereafter, underwent treatment at Silchar Medical College Hospital for about one and half months. In his cross-examination, when confronted with his previous statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., there was no statement that he had seen the accused persons assaulting the deceased. It is also in his evidence that he was treated first at Dharmanagar Hospital and thereafter, underwent treatment at Silchar Medical College Hospital for about one and half months. In his cross-examination, when confronted with his previous statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., there was no statement that he had seen the accused persons assaulting the deceased. He admitted that he has stated to the I.O. that he was followed by Giyas Uddin (PW No. 7) and his son in the place of occurrence. He could not say when his statement was recorded by the I.O. He had also admitted that PW No. 7 is his distantly related brother. 11. That, PW No. 7, the son of the deceased stated that on 3.4.1998 at about 9/ 9.30 a.m., while he was following the deceased at a distance of about 15/20 cubits, the deceased was assaulted by the accused persons with 'kirich', 'dao', 'rod', 'lathi' etc. and the deceased was trying to resist them. He found PW No. 6 running towards his father but he was also assaulted by the accused persons with 'kirich', 'dao' etc. and sustained injuries and thereafter, he fled away from the place of occurrence. The appellant No. 1 had assaulted him on his head and hand with 'kirich', he sustained bleeding injuries and thereafter, being afraid of the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. He was treated in Dharmanagar Hospital thereafter, in Silchar Medical College Hospital, where he stayed for about one and half months. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he had an enmity with the accused persons and the house of PW No. 6 lies near about 20/25 cubits from the place of occurrence in the southern side. He stated that he gave statement to the I.O. after about 6/7 months of the incident. He had also admitted that on the day of incident he went to the house of PW No. 6 to bring his father, where the deceased went to attend the village meeting. 12. That, the evidences on record reveal a clear picture that prior to the incident a village meeting in respect of a dispute between the PW No. 1 and the appellant No. 1 was held in the house of PW No. 6, in which the deceased, PW Nos. 1, 6, 7, husband of PW No. 5 and others were present. 12. That, the evidences on record reveal a clear picture that prior to the incident a village meeting in respect of a dispute between the PW No. 1 and the appellant No. 1 was held in the house of PW No. 6, in which the deceased, PW Nos. 1, 6, 7, husband of PW No. 5 and others were present. But, PW No. 6 is silent about the said meeting in his statement. According to PW No. 18, the Investigating Officer, the tension was started from the said meeting and the same is supported by the PW No. 17, who stated that the deceased, PW Nos. 1, 6, 7, husband of the PW No. 5 and others became furious after, the meeting and they went armed with 'lathis' towards the southern side stating that they would see the matter. The evidences of PW Nos. 1 and 18 and hand sketch map of the place of occurrence (Exbt.-P/11), further disclose that the alleged occurrence took place over the 'U' turn of a public road in the broad day light near the house of the PW No. 6 where many other houses are also situated. It is evident that all the star witnesses are relatives. PW No. 6 is a distantly related brother of PW No. 7, who is the son of the deceased. PW No. 5 is the aunt of PW No. 1, who is the grand son of the deceased by relation and as such all of them are interested witnesses. 13. That, according to PW No. 1, the appellant No. 1 gave blow to the deceased with 'kirich', whereas PW No. 5 stated that the appellant No. 1 assaulted the deceased with a sharp cutting weapon like 'dagger'. PW No. 6 did not state who and by which weapon the deceased was assaulted except the statement that the accused persons being armed with 'dagger', 'dao', iathi' etc. assaulted the deceased. According to him, the appellant No. I gave blows on his head and other parts of his body by a sharp cutting weapon. Similarly, PW No. 7 did not say who and by which weapon his father was assaulted except the statement that the accused persons assaulted the deceased with 'kirich', 'dao', 'rod', 'lathi' etc. According to him, the appellant No. 1 assaulted him on his head and hand with 'kirich'. Both PW Nos. Similarly, PW No. 7 did not say who and by which weapon his father was assaulted except the statement that the accused persons assaulted the deceased with 'kirich', 'dao', 'rod', 'lathi' etc. According to him, the appellant No. 1 assaulted him on his head and hand with 'kirich'. Both PW Nos. 6 and 7 stated that they fled away from the place of occurrence and the same is supported by P W No. 1. The above evidences reveal that both the PW Nos. 6 and 7 and the deceased were involved in the incident. 14. That, the statement of PW No. 1 that the deceased was assaulted by the appellant No. 1 with 'karich' is not supported by the other witnesses. The statement of PW Nos. 1 and 5 are contradictory each other as regards the type of weapon alleged to have been used by the appellant No. 1 in the occurrence. PW Nos. 6 and 7 did not lend support to the above statement. PW No. 6 stated that he was assaulted by the appellant No. 1 with a sharp cutting weapon. He did not mention anything about the 'kirich' whereas PW No. 7 stated that PW No. 6 was assaulted by the appellant No. 1 with 'kirich'. Their statements are contradictory each other. It may be noted that the trial was against six accused persons, of which, four were acquitted for want of evidences against them. 15. That, in the instant case, evidences reveal that Md. Abdul Rouf (deceased), Abdul Latif (PW No. 6), Giyas Uddin (PW No. 7), Abdul Matlib (appellant No. 1) and Habibur Rahman sustained injuries in the said occurrence and Abdul Rouf later on succumbed to his injuries. As per postmortem report marked Exbt.-P/8, the deceased sustained the following injuries: (1) A cut injury over RT, Frontal parietal region 4½" × 1" × 1½". (2) A cut injury over RT. Frontal region of Scalp 2½" × ½" × 1". (3) A cut injury over left temporal-parietal region of scalp 5" × 1½" × 1½". PW No. 11 (Doctor) opined that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries of the vital structure of the brain. Those injuries might have caused by sharp cutting weapon like 'dao', 'kirich', 'dagger' etc. (3) A cut injury over left temporal-parietal region of scalp 5" × 1½" × 1½". PW No. 11 (Doctor) opined that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries of the vital structure of the brain. Those injuries might have caused by sharp cutting weapon like 'dao', 'kirich', 'dagger' etc. In cross-examination, he stated that all the three injuries over the head of the deceased might be caused by rod like blunt weapon with high force. 16. That, according to the appellants, they had no sharp-cutting weapon of any kind when they were, attacked by the deceased and his party, the appellant No. 1 tried to defend the attack with the help of 'jack-lever', which was by then in his vehicle. The deceased and his party came with 'banti dao', 'stick' etc. and suddenly attacked on them, whereas according to the prosecution the deceased was attacked by the appellant No. 1 with 'kirich' or 'dagger', but no 'kirich' or 'dagger' was seized from or near the place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer (PW No. 18), immediately after the occurrence, under Seizure List marked Exbt.-P/2, in presence of the witnesses, seized the following articles from or near the place of occurrence: (1) Some blood stained earth where Abdul Rouf was recovered with bleeding injuries, (2) One 'Band dao', (3) One iron rod smeared with some blood, (4) One bamboo made 'lathi' and (5) Two long lathis seemed to be made to bamboos. 17. That, in view of the above contradictory statements of PW Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7 and the articles seized by the Investigating Officer, the prosecution story that the appellant No. 1 assaulted the deceased with 'kirich' or 'dagger' and also assaulted the PW Nos. 6 and 7 by the accused persons appears to be doubtful. Rather the appellants' version that they were attacked with 'Banti Dao' appears to be more probable. It is settled law that when two versions are available based on evidences on record, the version which is favourable to the accused persons should not be brushed aside without cogent and acceptable reasons. 18. That, be that as it may, it is in the evidences of PW Nos. 1, 17 and DW No. 1 that the appellants were sustained injuries on their bodies in the same incident and they were treated in the hospital. 18. That, be that as it may, it is in the evidences of PW Nos. 1, 17 and DW No. 1 that the appellants were sustained injuries on their bodies in the same incident and they were treated in the hospital. But in the instant case, the prosecution has completely failed to explain as to how the appellants sustained injuries on their bodies in the alleged occurrence. All the alleged eye-witnesses did not mention anything about the injuries inflicted on the bodies of the appellants though PW Nos. 6 and 7 were involved in the same offence. It is well-settled that the failure of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused persons in the same incident gives the impression that the prosecution has concealed the reality of the incident. In State of Rajasthan v. Madho and Anr. 1991 CriLJ 1343, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the prosecution witnesses shy away from the reality and do not explain the injuries caused to the respondents herein it cast a doubt on the genesis of the prosecution case since the evidence shows that these injuries were sustained in the course of the same incident. It gives the impression that the witnesses are suppressing some part of the incident, (para 2). In Balwan Singh v. State of Haryana (2005) 11 SCC 245 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that while the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the defence has, only to produce evidence or show material on record which probablise its defence. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held the testimony of the prosecution witnesses unreliable on account of failure of the prosecution to explain the vital injuries sustained by the accused persons who were promptly examined by Doctor. The Hon'ble Apex Court, reiterating the ratio laid down in Laxmi Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar 1976 CriLJ 1736, recently held in Babu Ram and Ors. v. State of Punjab 2008 CriLJ 1651 as follows: 18. It is well-settled law that in a murder ease, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences: 1. v. State of Punjab 2008 CriLJ 1651 as follows: 18. It is well-settled law that in a murder ease, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is 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 if is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. (See Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar SCC p. 401, para 12). 19. Further, it is important to point out 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. 19. That, we are of the firm view that the case in hand is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the above decisions. That being the position, we do not feel it necessary to discuss further on the above point. 20. That, besides it has also come to surface from the statement of PW No. 18 that the statement of PW No. 5 was recorded on 23.8.1998 i.e. after four months of the occurrence though she was available all along at her house. PW Nos. 6 and 7 were examined on 8.11.1998 i.e. after seven months of the occurrence. The Investigating Officer did not explain about the delay caused in recording their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It may be mentioned that PW Nos. 6 and 7, as per their statements, were in Silchar Medical College Hospital only for about 1½ months for the date of occurrence. The above witnesses are admittedly interested witnesses. The Investigating Officer did not explain about the delay caused in recording their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It may be mentioned that PW Nos. 6 and 7, as per their statements, were in Silchar Medical College Hospital only for about 1½ months for the date of occurrence. The above witnesses are admittedly interested witnesses. Such unexplained long delay on the part of the Investigating Officer in recording their statement at the earliest opportunity renders the evidences unreliable (Balakrushna Swain v. State of Orissa 1971 CriLJ 670). In Yazid Ali and Anr. v. State of Tripura (1996) 2 GLR 99 : 1996 (3) GLT 473 this Court also held that non-recording of the important witnesses at the earliest opportunity immediately after the occurrence is highly defective and the same cannot go to the prosecution. In the instant case, the Investigating Officer did not examine any independent witness though the occurrence took place on a public road near the dwelling houses of the villagers. This omission definitely gives serious doubt to the genuineness of the prosecution case. 21. That, on the facts and the evidences discussed above, and in view of the unexplained delay in recording the important alleged eye-witnesses and failure on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the appellants and having regard to the ratio laid down in the above decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the firm view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Resultantly, we have no hesitation in holding that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. That, in the result, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.9.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in S.T. No. 70 (NT/D) of 2000, is hereby set aside. The appellants are set at liberty. The bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Appeal allowed.