JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann, J. (Oral):- By a common judgment, the Court intends to dispose of the present appeal, filed by Rishi Pal accused, as well as Crl. Appeal No. 934-SB of 1998, filed by Amar Singh and six other accused, as in both the appeals, the judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal on 3/5.11.1998, while convicting and sentencing them, stands challenged. Vide impugned judgment and order, both sets of the appellants were convicted and sentenced as below: (i) All the appellants were convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the defaulting person was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months; (ii) Appellant-Rishi Pal was convicted under Section 307 IPC, whereas the remaining appellants were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the defaulting person was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years; (iii) Appellant-Rishi Pal was convicted under Section 324 IPC, whereas the remaining appellants were convicted under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the defaulting person was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months; and (iv) All the appellants were convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine, the defaulting person was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1½ months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. According to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place on 6.6.1991 at about 3.00 PM in the area of village Nagla Roran, where the appellants formed an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to cause simple and grievous injuries to the complainant party. Appellants Rishi Pal and Ram Dayal were armed with a gandasi each, appellant Ram Pal was armed with a saria, whereas the remaining appellants were carrying lathis. Appellant Rishi Pal gave a gandasi blow on the head of Mehar Singh. Another blow given by him from the reverse side of the gandasi fell on the back of Mehar Singh. Appellants Rishi Pal and Ram Dayal were armed with a gandasi each, appellant Ram Pal was armed with a saria, whereas the remaining appellants were carrying lathis. Appellant Rishi Pal gave a gandasi blow on the head of Mehar Singh. Another blow given by him from the reverse side of the gandasi fell on the back of Mehar Singh. Similarly, appellant Ram Dayal gave a gandasi blow on the shoulder of Mehar Singh. Appellant Ram Pal gave a saria blow on the foot of Mehar Singh, whereas the remaining appellants gave lathi blows on the person of Mehar Singh and Piara Lal. 3. After the occurrence, both Mehar Singh and Piara Lal were removed to Community Health Centre, Indri, where they were medicolegally examined. On receipt of medico-legal reports, ASI Siri Niwas of Police Station, Indri, went to the hospital and recorded the statement of Basant Lal on 6.6.1993 at 5.15 PM and on its basis, FIR No. 95 dated 6.6.1993 under Sections 341, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 IPC was registered at Police Station, Indri against the eight appellants on 6.6.1993 at 5.20 PM. After completion of formalities, the police presented challan against the appellants. As the offence under Section 307 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed. On 8.11.1993, Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal charged the appellants for the offences under sections 148, 307, 307 read with Section 149, 324, 324 read with Section 149 and 323 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr Raj Mohan Singh, PW-2 Jeet Ram, Patwari, PW-3 Dr (Mrs) Vinod Girotra, PW-4 Dr R.S.Chaudhary, PW-5 Dr S.K.Sogani, PW-6 Basant Lal, PW-7 Mehar Singh, PW-8 Piara Lal, PW-9 Dr K.K.Seth, PW-10 ASI Siri Niwas and PW-11 SI Surinder Kumar, besides tendering in evidence report of FSL Ex. PNN. 5. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, appellant Rishi Pal claimed that as a Press Reporter, he had been writing articles against Sh. Rai, the then Superintendent of Police, Karnal and for that reason, eight criminal cases were registered against him. Except for the present, he had been acquitted in the remaining cases. PNN. 5. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, appellant Rishi Pal claimed that as a Press Reporter, he had been writing articles against Sh. Rai, the then Superintendent of Police, Karnal and for that reason, eight criminal cases were registered against him. Except for the present, he had been acquitted in the remaining cases. He further stated that a piece of land measuring 33 kanals owned by him was got fraudulently leased out when he himself was in jail, in favour of Sewa Singh whose son Mohinder Singh was a witness. He further alleged that he had been writing articles against PWs Mehar Singh and Basant Lal qua their indulging in bootlegging. He tendered in evidence a number of documents. Remaining appellants denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded their false implication. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the record, the trial Court believed the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and minutely scanned the evidence available on the record with their able assistance. 8. These two appeals can be disposed of only on the issue of non-explanation of the injuries found on the persons of Amar Singh, Ram Pal and Roop Chand accused. All these three accused were medicolegally examined on 6.6.1993 by PW-3 Dr (Mrs.) Vinod Girotra. The said doctor had first medico-legally examined PW Mehar Singh on 6.6.1993 at 4.00 PM and then PW Piara Lal at 4.25 PM. She then examined Amar Singh accused on the same day at 4.40 PM and found the following injuries on his person: 1. A lacerated wound 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. into bone deep on the left parietal area, 8 c.m. above the left ear and 2 c.m. left to mid line. The margin was inverted, fresh blood was coming. Advised x-ray. 2. A lacerated wound 2 c.m. x ½ c.m. x ½ c.m. on the right fronto parietal area of the scalp 7 c.m. above the right external ear and 3 c.m. right to mid line. The margin was inverted. Fresh blood was coming. Advised x-ray. 9. Accused Ram Pal was also medico-legally examined on the same day at 5.40 PM when following injuries were noticed on his person: 1. The margin was inverted. Fresh blood was coming. Advised x-ray. 9. Accused Ram Pal was also medico-legally examined on the same day at 5.40 PM when following injuries were noticed on his person: 1. A lacerated wound 2 c.m. x ½ c.m. x ½ c.m. on the right parietal zone, 1 c.m. right to mid line and 14 c.m. above the right pinna. The margin was inverted. Fresh blood was coming. Advised x-ray. 2. A bright red abrasion 1½ c.m. x 1 c.m. on the back of the right forearm above the elbow joint. 10. Similarly, accused Roop Chand was medico-legally examined on the same day at 5.30 PM and the following injury was noticed on his person: 1. Lacerated wound 1 c.m. x ½ c.m. x ½ c.m. on the top of the left thumb. The margin was inverted, fresh blood was coming. 11. A perusal of both the injuries found on the person of Amar Singh and injury No.1 on the person of Ram Pal would show that these injuries were on their vital parts i.e. on the head portions. These three injuries were lacerated in nature and having inverted margins. It is true that PW-3 Dr (Mrs) Vinod Girotra had advised that these injuries be x-rayed and none of the two accused got himself radiologically examined, but the fact remains that these injuries were on the vital portions of their bodies. Injury No.2 on the person of Ram Pal and the sole injury on the person of Roop Chand were declared simple in nature, but despite the same, it cannot be said that these injuries were self-suffered as the prosecution did not care to re-examine Dr Vinod Girotra and seek her opinion about these injuries being caused by a friendly hand or self suffered. In the FIR lodged by Basant Lal, there was not even a whisper about the injuries caused to the three accused. However, while being examined as PW-5 complainant Basant Lal stated that Amar Singh and Ram Pal accused also received injuries while he, alongwith others was separating them from inflicting injuries on the persons of Mehar Singh and Piara Lal. In a way said Basant Lal admitted the factum of causing of injuries to Amar Singh and Ram Pal. However, while being examined as PW-5 complainant Basant Lal stated that Amar Singh and Ram Pal accused also received injuries while he, alongwith others was separating them from inflicting injuries on the persons of Mehar Singh and Piara Lal. In a way said Basant Lal admitted the factum of causing of injuries to Amar Singh and Ram Pal. During his cross-examination, he stated that Balbir, belonging to the complainant party, was having a lathi and while separating the accused, said Balbir used the lathi in giving blows to Amar Singh and Ram Pal. However, he had not stated before the police that it was Balbir who had inflicted lathi blows on the persons of Amar Singh and Ram Pal while separating the accused. Similar is the version of the prosecution through the statements of PW-7 Mehar Singh and PW-8 Piara Lal of the complainant party, who had received injuries during the occurrence in question. 12. According to PW-6 Basant Lal, it was Balbir, who had wielded the lathi in causing injuries to Amar Singh and Ram Pal but said Balbir was not examined by the prosecution. It appears that the prosecution felt shy in producing Balbir before the trial Court apprehending that he may deny causing of injuries to some of the accused. 13. The net result of above discussion is that no explanation had been submitted by the prosecution in the first instance regarding the injuries found on the persons of the accused. During trial of the accused, an attempt was made to explain those injuries but it was half-hearted as Balbir, who according to the prosecution had caused those injuries, was not examined as a witness. At the same time, the prosecution did not give any explanation about the injury found on the person of Roop Chand. 14. The effect of non-explanation of the injuries on the persons of the accused, especially, when some of the injuries were on vital portions of the accused and, therefore, could not be self-suffered, was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh and others etc. vs State of Bihar, AIR 1976 S.C 2263, wherein it was held that in such a situation, the Court could 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. vs State of Bihar, AIR 1976 S.C 2263, wherein it was held that in such a situation, the Court could draw the following inferences: 1. that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; 2. that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; 3. that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. 15. In view of the above, no inherent reliance can be placed upon the prosecution version so as to sustain the conviction and sentences of the appellants, as recorded by the trial Court. Both the appeals are, accordingly, allowed, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges against them. Their bail bonds be cancelled. In case, the appellants have already paid the fine, the same be refunded to them. ----------------