JUDGMENT Hon'ble GOMBER, J.—Both the above mentioned appeals pertain to a matter arising out of FIR No. 244/1977 dated 30.10.1977 Ex. P. 2 lodged at the instance of Mangal Singh S/o Nanda at Police Station Badi, Distt. Bharatpur. 2. The case was registered against five persons namely Malkhey Singh and his four sons Raghuwar Dayal, Tara Singh, Ram Ratan and Shiv Singh. Out of whom only Shiv Singh and Tara Singh are alive and the other three i.e. Malkhey Singh, Raghuwar Dayal and Ram Ratan have expired during the pendency of these appeals and State appeal filed against them stood abated. 3. After the lodging of report, Police could initially arrest only four persons namely Malkhey Singh, Raghuwar Dayal, Shiv Singh and Ram Ratan and as against them the charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 & 149 IPC for which they were tried by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Dholpur in Sessions case No. 19/79 and were acquitted of all the charges by learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 6.6.81 on the ground of right of private defence to person and property available to them. As against said judgment, State of Rajasthan has preferred appeal No. 111/1982. 4. So far as the Fifth accused namely Tara Singh was concerned, he was shown absconding and a supplementary charge-sheet, after his arrest on 31.1.1983, was filed and the trial commenced against him on 15.2.1983 as Sessions case No. 13/83 before learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur, who, vide his judgment dated 31.1.1985, recorded a finding of conviction under Sections 302 & 326 IPC and sentenced him as under: (i) For offence under Section 302 IPC, sentence of imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default, to further two month's simple imprisonment; (ii) For offence under Section 326 IPC, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default whereof further imprisonment of 1-1/2 months. 5. Accused Tara Singh, being aggrieved of the said judgment, has also preferred his criminal appeal which was registered as 70/1985. 6. Both the above mentioned appeals pertaining to the same incident are being disposed by this common order. 7. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in Ex. 200/- in default whereof further imprisonment of 1-1/2 months. 5. Accused Tara Singh, being aggrieved of the said judgment, has also preferred his criminal appeal which was registered as 70/1985. 6. Both the above mentioned appeals pertaining to the same incident are being disposed by this common order. 7. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in Ex. P/2 are that on 30.10.77, at about 7.30 am, Ram Singh deceased, the brother of complainant Mangal Singh, was ploughing the field known as `Markhation Wala Khet' which is adjacent to accused Malkhey's field and that a dispute between him and the accused Malkhey had been going on for a long time with regard to the `Med' between their two fields. 8. His other two brothers Manjeeta and Phool Singh were also ploughing their fields situated nearby. The complainant, at that time, was 2 to 3 fields away from the place of occurrence and on hearing the cry, he ran towards that field and saw that Malkhey & his sons Ram Ratan, Shiv Singh, Raghuwar Dayal and Tara Singh were beating his brother Phool Singh and his other two brothers Ram Singh and Manjeeta were lying on the ground. He saw Raghuwar Dayal and Tara Singh laced with Pharsa, Shiv Singh and Malkhey with Lathi and Ram Ratan with Ballam. 9. As soon as he reached, they tried to assault him also but he ran towards Hingota village and came back with Ramji, Ramlal & Pati. By the time, he came back, Ram Singh had succumbed to injuries and Manjeeta & Phool Singh were lying injured and unconscious. Further that, the occurrence was witnessed by Shivcharan, Mando, Sampat and Attar Singh who were ploughing their respective fields and who tried to save also but in vain. 10. On this report, case No. 244/77 under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 & 149 IPC was registered at Police Station Badi, Distt. Dholpur and after investigation, two charge-sheet in the manner stated hereinabove were filed. 11. On committal of the case before the Court of Sessions, the charges under Sections 148, 302 and 307 IPC were framed and read over to the four accused on 3.7.79 and to Tara Singh in supplementary charge-sheet on 22.10.83, to which they all denied and claimed trials. 12. 11. On committal of the case before the Court of Sessions, the charges under Sections 148, 302 and 307 IPC were framed and read over to the four accused on 3.7.79 and to Tara Singh in supplementary charge-sheet on 22.10.83, to which they all denied and claimed trials. 12. Since Tara Singh's case was tried after the judgment of the case against the order four accused persons, the witnesses were examined separately. 13. In order to prove its case, against the accused of both the appeals, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents. Statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein accused appellant Tara Singh took a plea of alibi whereas other four pleaded right of private defence to person and property saying that the occurrence took place at `Med' and according to Shiv Singh, `Med' belonged to Malkhey and his father Nanda. Malkhey's explanation was that it was his `Med' and a day before the incident, the complainant party tried to plough it and was stopped. But the next day, they again ploughed and on Ram Ratan's objecting to it, Ram Singh, Phool Singh, Mangal, Gulab and Manjeeta assaulted him. When the accused party came to save Ram Ratan the deceased Ram Singh gave a lathi blow to Ram Ratan whereas Mangal tried to inflict injury upon him with ballam but that ballam of Mangal hurt his own brother deceased Ram Singh and Mangal, leaving the ballam, ran away and that the accused were severely beaten by complainant side whereby all the accused sustained injuries. 14. They, however, did not lead any defence except confronting previous statements of Sampat Ex.D.1, of Phool Singh Ex.D.2, of Shiv Charan u/Secs. 164 & 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.D/3 & D/4 and of Mangal Singh Ex.D/5. They also proved four injury reports of Ram Ratan, Raghuwar Dayal, Shiv Singh and Malkhey as Ex.D/6 to Ex.D/9 through PW.12 Dr. V.G. Kamthan showing in all thirteen injuries sustained by them, some of which were on vital parts and were grie-vous with sharp weapon claimed to have been sustained at the same time. 15. Accused Tara Singh, had placed alibi but did not lead any evidence in this regard. However there was no injury found on the person of Tara Singh who is stated to be the youngest of all at that time. 16. 15. Accused Tara Singh, had placed alibi but did not lead any evidence in this regard. However there was no injury found on the person of Tara Singh who is stated to be the youngest of all at that time. 16. As mentioned above, four of the accused appellants were acquitted on the ground of right of private defence to person and property in the first case and accused Tara Singh was convicted in the second trial for causing murder of Ram Singh and grievous injuries by Sharp weapon on the person of Manjeeta and Phool Singh and sentenced as mentioned above. He was, however, acquitted of the charges under Section 148 and also of assistance of 149 because of the finding in the previous case. 17. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely scanned through the record as well as case law cited before us. 18. The position which emerges from the totality of circumstances is that the fields of the accused and the complainant party are adjacent to each other and there is a Med which divides the fields of accused Malkhey Singh and complainant Mangal Singh. Further that during the occurrence at 7.30 am of 30.10.77, three persons of complainant party named Manjeeta, Phool Singh and Ram Singh received injuries. Out of whom, Ram Singh died at the spot and from the side of accused party also, four persons received injuries on their person. 19. PW.12 Dr. V.G. Kamthan who conducted autopsy of deceased Ram Singh at 5.00 pm on the same day and prepared Post Mortem Report Ex. P.3, found following four external injuries on his person: (i) Incised wound 25 cm x 5 cm deep to brain substance & buccal cavity extending from Frontal bone to Mandible No. 1 left side of face and skull; (2) Incised wound 12 cm x 3 cm deep to brain substance on Right Parietal eminence obliquely placed; (3) Incised wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm deep to lung and left clavicle bone medial end below the bone and parallel to it; (4) Incised wound 4 cm x 0.5 cm deep to lung left clavicular region lateral end of chest obliquely placed. Internal injuries found on his body were as under: Fracture of left frontal bone in middle longitudinally Zygomatic bone mandible left side in middle, right frontal bone obliquely. 20. Internal injuries found on his body were as under: Fracture of left frontal bone in middle longitudinally Zygomatic bone mandible left side in middle, right frontal bone obliquely. 20. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to injury to the brain substance with fracture of frontal bone (Left) and parietal bone (Right) leading to hemorrhagic shock caused by sharp weapon. 21. On the same day, the injuries of Mangal Ram @ Manjeeta S/o Nanda were clinically examined and following six injuries were found on his body. (i) Lacerated wound 5 cm x 1.5 cm deep to skull bone left parietal bone just above Parietal eminence perpendicular. X-ray was advised. (ii) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm deep just below occipital protuberance. (iii) Incised wound 6 cm x 0.5 cm deep to skin oblique in direction left side back of chest below inferior angle of scapula. (iv) Clot mark 23 cm x 2 cm left side back of chest extending from inferior angle of scapula towards lumber Vertebra. (v) clots mark 20 cm x 2 cm across back at left lumber vertebrae. (vi) Incised wound with fracture of bone 5 cm x 2 cm deep to bone right forearm outer side lower 1/4 - grievous in nature caused by sharp weapon; Out of which, injury No. 5 was grievous with sharp weapon, No. 3 was simple with sharp weapon; injury No. 1 caused head injury. It was mild in nature but was grievous. Others were simple by blunt weapon. Injury report was proved as Ex. P/4. 22. Phool Singh S/o Nanda was also medically examined and injury report Ex. P. 5 was also prepared wherein following four injuries were found: (i) Swelling 8 cm x 6 cm dorsum of right hand. Skiagram advised. (ii) Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm right leg medially lower 1/4. (iii) clot mark 24 cm x 2 cm across the chest above nipple. Suspected fracture of rib 3 anteriorly of rightside. Advised skiagram. (iv) Swelling deforms present 6 cm x 3 cm left forearm lower 1/3. (v) Fracture of both bones radius and ulna. The injury the grievous and was caused by blunt weapon. 23. As per Ex. P/5, injury No. 4 was grievous caused by blunt weapon and No. 3 simple by sharp weapon whereas others were simple caused by blunt weapon. (iv) Swelling deforms present 6 cm x 3 cm left forearm lower 1/3. (v) Fracture of both bones radius and ulna. The injury the grievous and was caused by blunt weapon. 23. As per Ex. P/5, injury No. 4 was grievous caused by blunt weapon and No. 3 simple by sharp weapon whereas others were simple caused by blunt weapon. On the other hand, four persons from the side of accused party sustained as many as thirteen injuries in the same occurrence who were also examined by the same doctor on the same day. (1) Accused Ram Ratan S/o Malkhey Singh following injuries as shown in his injury report Ex. D/6 they were: (i) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm deep to skin on occipital bone; (ii) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm deep to skin. (iii) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm deep to skin on occipital bone towards right side; (iv) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm deep to skin; frontal bone hear suggested perpendicularly simple blunt; (v) Swelling 4 cm x 3 cm left front of thigh lower 1/4. (2) Accused Raghuwar Dayal S/o Malkhey Singh sustained following injuries as shown in his injury report Ex.D/7 they were: (i) Lacerated wound 6 cm x 1 cm deep to skin in middle of scalp; (ii) Swelling 3 cm x 1 cm dorsum of left hand in middle; (iii) Abrasion circular 1 cm radius left elbow. (3) Accused Shiv Singh S/o Malkhey Singh sustained following injuries as shown in his injury report Ex. D/8 they were: (i) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm deep to skin, left frontal bone. (ii) Swelling 2 cm x 2 cm right clavicle bone lateral end. (4) Accused Malkhey S/o Lalai Ram sustained following injuries as shown in his injury report Ex. D/9 they were: (i) Lacerated wound 5 cm x 2 cm deep to bone; left frontal bone obliquely placed. (ii) Swelling 7 cm x 6 cm left dorsum hand (iii) Swelling 3 cm x 2 cm right hand down towards medially. 24. (4) Accused Malkhey S/o Lalai Ram sustained following injuries as shown in his injury report Ex. D/9 they were: (i) Lacerated wound 5 cm x 2 cm deep to bone; left frontal bone obliquely placed. (ii) Swelling 7 cm x 6 cm left dorsum hand (iii) Swelling 3 cm x 2 cm right hand down towards medially. 24. Learned Public Prosecutor assailed the findings of acquittal of accused arrived at by learned trial Court on the following grounds: (i) That the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly; (ii) that there was consistent evidence with regard to the injuries on the person of deceased which was also corroborated by medical evidence; (iii) That in the given case the deceased Ram Singh was not laced with any deadly weapon and he was alone and, as per the evidence he was having lathi only; (iv) That the accused in such circumstances could not be said to have had right of Private defence to Person and Property; (v) Lastly that the injuries on the persons of accused were not serious and that they have been explained by the Prosecution saying that Ram Singh was also brandishing lathi. 25. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents in State's appeal No. 111/1982 supported the judgment dated 6.6.81 of learned Sessions Judge and contended: (i) that true genesis of occurrence has been suppressed by the prosecution and as many as 13 injuries received by the four accused persons have not been explained by the prosecution. (ii) that the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the four accused on the basis of right of private defence to person and property available to them. (ii) that the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the four accused on the basis of right of private defence to person and property available to them. As their case was that when the `Med' was being ploughed by Ram Singh deceased, the accused Ram Ratan tried to stop him and on Mangal's inflicting ballam blow and Ram Singh brandishing lathi, they came to save Ram Ratan; (iii) That the accused had rightly given said explanation during their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C; (iv) that there was no illegality or perversity in the judgment of Learned trial Court which may warrant interference by this Court in appeal; (v) lastly it was argued that as per settled law of the land, in cases of appeal against acquittal, even if, on re-appreciation of evidence by the Appellate Court, two views are possible then the view favourable to the accused should be adopted by the High Court. 26. Arguing on behalf of appellant Tara Singh in Appeal No. 70/1985 against the judgment dated 31.1.1985, learned counsel argued that: (i) Firstly, the witnesses were interested and enemical and that their testimony could not have inspired confidence; (ii) Secondly, that the witnesses made material improvements in the 2nd trial and when confronted with their statements, in the previous trial, they could not offer any explanation; (iii) Thirdly, that the Learned trial Court's finding was illegal and perverse and against the record; (iv) Fourthly, the learned trial Court did not appreciate the fact that the plea of alibi taken by him got itself corroborated by the fact that he did not sustain even single injury whereas four persons from the accused side and three persons from the side of complainant received injuries. His argument was that had he been present he was bound to have received at least some bruise or abrasion or swelling in such an incident having 5 persons on each side laced with so called weapons. (v) Lastly the true genesis of occurrence has been suppressed by the Prosecution. 27. We have given our thoughtful consideration to each and every argument and re-appreciated the entire evidence on record in the light of the arguments advanced and the surrounding circumstances as well as the conduct of the parties. 28. (v) Lastly the true genesis of occurrence has been suppressed by the Prosecution. 27. We have given our thoughtful consideration to each and every argument and re-appreciated the entire evidence on record in the light of the arguments advanced and the surrounding circumstances as well as the conduct of the parties. 28. There are two serious infirmities in the evidence led on behalf of Prosecution which threw grave doubt on the veracity of the Prosecution case against the appellants. In the first place, the evidence clearly shows that on the side of the accused appellants four of them received as many as thirteen injuries in the incident which took place between the parties. All these injuries, according to Dr. A.K. Majithaan, who examined the appellants also had been caused by sharp as well as blunt weapons, some of which were grievous also. The Prosecution, although tried to explain by stating that Ram Singh deceased was also brandishing lathi but the fact is that single lathi of Ram Singh could not have caused so many injuries on four accused which shows that the true story is not brought forward. It is also important to note that almost all the witnesses except one, denied having seen any injury on the person of any of the accused whereas four of them were injured with injuries which, as per the medical expert, were neither superficial nor self inflicted and were sustained at the same time as the occurrence. Surprisingly there is no mention of such a fact in Ex. P.2 FIR lodged by complainant Mangal Singh although it does mention the name of all the five accused showing their coming as members of unlawful assembly and assaulting the deceased and his brothers. Besides the two injured who are real brothers of deceased and complainant, there are four independent witnesses who are also named in the FIR as eye witnesses. They are PW-6 Shiv Charan, PW-3 Mando, PW-2 Sampat and PW.4 Attar Singh. Complainant Mangal Singh was admittedly not present at the place of occurrence as he was two to three fields away. Besides these eye witnesses, Phool Singh and Manjeeta who are the real brothers of deceased and also of complainant, are injured eye witnesses. 29. Strangely, PW-1 Phool Singh, denies seeing any injury on the person of accused. Complainant Mangal Singh was admittedly not present at the place of occurrence as he was two to three fields away. Besides these eye witnesses, Phool Singh and Manjeeta who are the real brothers of deceased and also of complainant, are injured eye witnesses. 29. Strangely, PW-1 Phool Singh, denies seeing any injury on the person of accused. In the same manner, PW.2 Sampat denies having caused any beating to any of the accused and also denies seeing any injury or blood on the person of any of the accused. PW. 4 Mando, shows his ignorance to the suggestion that in the incident, the accused Ram Ratan, Shiv Singh, Raghuwar Dayal and Malkhey sustained injuries. He denies having seeing any blood on their head or any part of the body. PW. 5 Shiv Charan, also denies having seeing any injury on the person of accused. PW-8 Manjeeta denies having caused any injury to the accused and also denies having seeying them. PW-10 Sampat at page 21 denies the suggestion given by the defence counsel that complainant party Mangal Singh, Phool Singh, Manjeeta and Ram Singh had given beatings to the accused Malkhey, Raghuwar Dayal, Ram Ratan and caused injuries. 30. When we come to the genesis of occurrence also and analyze & reappreciate the evidence available on record, we find that PW-1 Phool Singh totally denies the suggestion that Ram Singh had broken the `Med' by blood. In the same manner, PW-2 Mangal Singh denies that deceased Ram Singh had broken the `Med' of the field of accused Malkhey and he also denies that at the time of occurrence, Ram Singh's plough cart was lying on the `Med'. PW-4 Mando at page 11 also denies seeing the broken `Med' of Malkhey. PW-5 Shiv Charan denies the suggestion that before Malkhey and Ram Ratan came, Ram Singh had ploughed the `Med' of Malkhey. It is important to note that in the site plan Ex. P/3, the Investigating Officer has found the `Med' broken immediately after the incident. PW-10 Sampat denies that at the time of site inspection by the police, `Med' was broken. But PW-9 Mahadeo, Investigating Officer admits that the incident took place only on account of ploughing of the `Med' and that at that time, `Med' was found broken and ploughed. 31. P/3, the Investigating Officer has found the `Med' broken immediately after the incident. PW-10 Sampat denies that at the time of site inspection by the police, `Med' was broken. But PW-9 Mahadeo, Investigating Officer admits that the incident took place only on account of ploughing of the `Med' and that at that time, `Med' was found broken and ploughed. 31. Another very important circumstance which had come on record is that PW-1 denies there being any previous enmity or any occurrence between the parties with regard to `Med' but in the FIR PW.2 Mangal Singh who is author of the FIR, has mentioned that the dispute with regard to `Med' had been going on for long time. But in his statement in the court during his cross-examination, he denies that there was any dispute with regard to `Med' between them. When confronted with his previous statement and also with Ex. P/1 and Ex. D/2, he denies having made such statement. PW-6 Manjeeta also states that there was no dispute with regard to `Med' between them. 32. On perusal of evidence, we also find that there are material contradictions, discrepancies and improvements in the statements of the witnesses, for example PW1 Phool Singh, PW-4 Mando, PW-5 Shiv Charan and PW-6 Manjeeta deposed that Ram Ratan inflicted injury on the chest of Ram Singh by Ballam from piercing side whereas there is no pierced injury of Ballam on the chest of deceased Ram Singh. But it appears that the prosecution has tried to suppress the true facts with regard to the incident and that moreover they had tried to even deny having seen any injuries on the person of four accused. 33. As regards the second appeal filed by Tara Singh against his conviction, the evidence was looked into by us. We find that Mangal Singh complainant examined as PW-2 had made material improvements from his statements made in the first trial against other accused. He alleged Raghuwar Dayal also having ballam whereas in his earlier statement he had alleged him having Farsa. He deposed about hearing the cries of Ram Singh's wife for help and not of Ram Singh. Further he claims to be the first one to reach the place of occurrence and see Ram Singh lying on the ground. According to him, other witnesses Mando, Shiv Charan, Sampat and Attar Singh came only after he reached. He deposed about hearing the cries of Ram Singh's wife for help and not of Ram Singh. Further he claims to be the first one to reach the place of occurrence and see Ram Singh lying on the ground. According to him, other witnesses Mando, Shiv Charan, Sampat and Attar Singh came only after he reached. Further that the accused ran after him and he went to Hingota village and brought Ram Lal, Pati & Ramji to the place of occurrence. By that time, Ram Singh had died and Phool Singh and Manjeeta were injured. 34. In his cross-examination, he denied that Ram Singh had broken the Med and that accused had objected to that. He admits having reached after the occurrence but claims seeing all the five accused there. He deposed that Tara Singh gave Farsa blow on the neck of Ram Singh in his presence but could not explain as to why this fact was not written in his previous statement or in FIR Ex. P/2. In his later trial, he was confronted with his previous statement Ex. D/4 and also statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. proved as Ex. D/3. He made considerable improvements and variances. He also denied that any of the accused persons had sustained any injuries in this occurrence. 35. Mahadev Singh, who was Investigating Officer and who reached the spot immediately after the occurrence and made the site plan Ex. P/3, has shown the Med broken from one side. The defence advanced by the accused was that Ram Ratan had objected to Ram Singh's breaking the `Med' whereupon complainant Mangal Singh had given ballam blow to Ram Ratan and that ballam instead injured Ram Singh who fell down and other accused persons who were at `Adda' i.e. about 50 fields away, came running to save Ram Ratan. Mangal Singh claims to have reached first of all but admits that since the accused tried to assault him, he went to the village Hingota and by the time he came back, he saw his brother Ram Singh dead and other two brothers lying unconscious. So he cannot be said to have seen the occurrence but he claimed to have reached the spot before all the other witnesses. 36. Other witnesses who claimed themselves to be eye witnesses also claimed to have heard the hue and cries from their fields. So he cannot be said to have seen the occurrence but he claimed to have reached the spot before all the other witnesses. 36. Other witnesses who claimed themselves to be eye witnesses also claimed to have heard the hue and cries from their fields. They claimed seeing the occurrence standing away but did not come to rescue. They only stated that they begged of accused not to beat and being scared did not come near the spot as they were asked by the accused to remain away. 37. The explanation given by the accused Malkhey in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that complainant party i.e. Ram Singh, Phool Singh, Mangal Singh, Gulab and Manjeeta had ploughed his `Med' a day before the occurrence and they were asked not to do so. Second day again they ploughed and on Ram Ratan's objecting thereto, he was surrounded by all of them and Ram Singh gave a lathi blow to him. Mangal Singh was brandishing ballam which injured Ram Singh and Mangal Singh leaving his ballam, ran away and they gave beatings to them. That they went for Ram Ratan's rescue. 38. Now the question which arises in these circumstances is as to who could be said to be the aggressor, is it the accused or is it the complainant party? It is relevant to mention here that the four accused have sustained 13 injuries, some of them are grievous with sharp weapon and the prosecution witnesses have denied seeing any injury on the persons of accused. Some of them showed ignorance and some of them stated that, may be in scuffle or rescuing, they might have sustained. As per prosecution case, Ram Singh was alone and was just having a 'Pitania' i.e. lathi or 'chabuk' whatever it may be but something like lathi. Some of them showed ignorance and some of them stated that, may be in scuffle or rescuing, they might have sustained. As per prosecution case, Ram Singh was alone and was just having a 'Pitania' i.e. lathi or 'chabuk' whatever it may be but something like lathi. It appears that four accused persons sustained as many as 13 severe injuries which were neither superficial nor self-inflicted and had been sustained at the same time as of occurrence and which have not been explained by the prosecution and the member & nature of injuries of accused cannot be said to have been caused by just one lathi of Ram Singh which clearly shows that the true genesis of the occurrence has been supperssed by the prosecution and as per settled principles of law enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time, its benefit should be given to the accused. 39. Admittedly the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the person of deceased and who also examined injured Manjeeta and Phool Singh had examined four accused persons on the same day just after the occurrence and had found as many as thirteen injuries, as narrated herein above, on their persons some of which were grievous and caused by sharp weapons. There was no explanation from the Prosecution side in this regard. 40. It is a well settled law 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 of occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; 2. that the witnesses who have denied the presence of injuries in the person of 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 persons of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the Prosecution case [Lakshmi Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 ] 41. that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the persons of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the Prosecution case [Lakshmi Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 ] 41. Further, it is important to point out that the omission on the part of 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 Prosecution one. In the present case the Prosecution, admittedly, has not explained the injuries on the person of the accused. 42. Here there is one more infirmity in the evidence led on behalf of the Prosecution which throws grave doubt on the veracity of the Prosecution case against the accused. Although this is an unfortunate case where a person has lost his life over a petty and trivial dispute. On a perusal of evidence and circumstances of case we feel that Prosecution has not come with the true version and the result is that the murder of a young man is to go unpunished and this is yet another misfortune of the case but if the Prosecution doesnot choose to put forward the true version it is to be itself squarely blamed for the failure of the case. 43. The Learned Public Prosecutor assailing the Trial Court's finding of acquittal vehemently argued in the state appeal that this Court has wide powers to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. Further that the law puts no limitation restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court, on the evidence before it, may reach its own conclusion both on question of fact and of law. 44. On the other hand supporting the finding of acquittal by Trial Court, Learned counsel for respondents argued that even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. 45. 44. On the other hand supporting the finding of acquittal by Trial Court, Learned counsel for respondents argued that even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. 45. We have considered these arguments and have also elaborately dealt with the evidence herein above and we find that Learned Trial Court in its lengthy and comprehensive judgment has dealt with the Prosecution evidence and also all the material exhibits available on record besides the defence story as well. Only when entire evidence is considered in a Proper Perspective the correct conclusion can be possible. 46. The circumstances which emerge from the re-appreciation of evidence are that three of the eye witnesses are real brothers of the deceased and admittedly were away from the place of occurrence who claimed to have reached the spot after hearing the cry from the side of field of deceased. As per the FIR itself there was some dispute going on between the complainant and accused party with regard to the `Med' in Markatiya Wala Khet. Admittedly these witnesses were interested as well as inimical. Although relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness and it is also more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person leaving a way for the real accused to escape. But in the present case the enemity between the parties on the issue of Med cannot be overlooked. In Exp-2 itself complainant mentioned that there were strained relations between them with regard to Med and in such circumstances over exaggeration or suppression of true genesis by the complainant cannot be ruled out. 47. Serious contradictions and inconsistencies are there in the evidence of Complainant Mangal Singh and even if his story is believed his conduct is totally unnatural and the defence taken by Malkhey in examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is more probable that complainant Ram Singh was ploughing the Med and on Ram Rattan's objection, Mangal Singh brandished ballam and that ballam injured his brother and then Mangal leaving the ballam and also his injured brother ran away and the other accused them came to save Ram Ratan. 48. 48. Having given our careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and in the light of the evidence and in the background of the well settled proposition of law and in view of the improbabilities, the serious omissions and infirmities, the interested nature of the evidence and circumstance, it is clear that the Prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the considered view that the Trial Court has carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record and the view taken by the Trial Court is certainly a possible or a plausible view. 49. We also fail to arrive to a conclusion that the discussion and appreciation of the evidence of the Trial Court so outrageously defies logic so as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse or are against the weight of evidence. 50. The settled legal proposition is that in an appeal against acquittal the High Court is bound to see whether views expressed by the Trial Court are reasonably possible, If the views expressed are reasonably possible, even if another view is possible, the appellate Court will not interfere in it. 51. The legal position is well settled and consistent since 1934 when the Privy Council decided the case of Sheo Swaroop and Ors. vs. King Emperor (AIR 1934 PC 227). Said proposition of law has been consistently followed by Hon'ble Apex Court in its later decisions. 52. In Ghurey Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 10 SCC 450 . Hon'ble Apex Court provided guidelines for the Appellate Courts in dealing with the cases in which the Trial Courts have acquitted the accused. The following principles emerged. "1. The accused is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the Trial Court. The Trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. 2. The power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate Court can re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the Trial Court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law, but appellate court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the Trial Court. 3. The appellate Court should always keep in mind that the Trial Court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanor of the witnesses. It can review the Trial Court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law, but appellate court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the Trial Court. 3. The appellate Court should always keep in mind that the Trial Court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanor of the witnesses. The Trial Court is in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. 4. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the Trial Court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. 5. If two reasonable or possible views can be reached-one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/ appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused." 53. Again in recently delivered judgment State of Rajasthan vs. Naresh @ Ram Naresh ( 2009(11) Scale 699 ) Hon'ble Apex Court again examined its judgments and laid down that "An order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the Court believes that there is some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused. This Court has dealt with the scope of interference with an order of acquittal in a number of cases." 54. Learned counsel for the appellant Tara Singh, assailing the finding of conviction against him, argued that his case was on the same footing as that of other accused who were acquitted of all the charges. Moreover, according to him, learned Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that the Prosecution witnesses improved their statements drastically in the later trial out of vengeance and when confronted with their statements before the court in their previous trial, they did not have any explanation and such witnesses can not be said to be reliable. Although it is true that with the passage of time memory of a witness is bound to fade, but his argument was that the improve-ments were to ensure his conviction. Further that the Learned Trial Court also did not appreciate the fact that the plea of alibi got strengthened with the fact that it was only he who did not sustain even an abrasion or a bruise which, had he been there, was unlikely. Further that the Learned Trial Court also did not appreciate the fact that the plea of alibi got strengthened with the fact that it was only he who did not sustain even an abrasion or a bruise which, had he been there, was unlikely. His argument was that even if, for the sake of arguments, his plea is not believed then also his case could not be said to be on a different footing than that of other accused who were acquitted on the ground of having right of private defence to person and property. 55. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand argued that the plea of self defense was not raised by appellant Tara Singh and that he, on the contrary, pleaded alibi. 56. We have considered these arguments. The fact that the appellant pleaded alibi, in itself, will not preclude the court from giving him also the right of private defence if on proper appraisal of the evidence and other material on record, court finds it to be available to him. 57. On the basis of discussion made herein above we are of the considered view that even on re-appreciation of evidence we have not been able to persuade ourselves to take a different view than the one taken by the learned Trial Court in the case of Malkhey Singh and others (respondents of appeal No. 111/82). However we find that on the over all appreciation of the evidence and in view of material contradictions and improvements made by the witnesses in the later trial against Tara Singh, their evidence could not be said to have been of sterling worth on the basis of which appellant's conviction could be sustained. 58. Accordingly we allow the appeal filed by Tara Singh being appeal No. 70/1985 and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 31.1.1985 and acquit him of all the charges levelled against him. He is on bail and his bail bonds are accordingly cancelled. 59. On the basis of discussion made hereinabove, the State appeal filed against respondent Shiv Singh is accordingly dismissed. As against other three respondents, it already stood abated on account of their death during the pendency of the appeal.