Hon'ble RATHORE, J.— Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. Hon'ble RATHORE, J.— Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. The appellants, seven in number, have filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 18.12.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No.124/2001, whereby he has convicted and sentenced them as under : (A) Accused Kanhaiya Lal and Mahendra (i)Under Section 302 IPC – Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine further 2 months S.I. (ii) Under Section 307/149 IPC – 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine further 1 month S.I. (iii) Under Section 326/149 IPC– 4 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine further 1 month S.I. (iv) Under Section 148 IPC – 2 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine further 15 days S.I. (B) Accused – Mahaveer (i)Under Section 302 IPC – Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine further 2 months S.I. (ii) Under Section 307/149 IPC – 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine further 1 month S.I. (iii) Under Section 326 IPC – 4 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine further 1 month S.I. (iv) Under Section 148 IPC – 2 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine further 15 days S.I. (C) Accused Udham (i) Under Section 302/149 IPC – Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine further 2 months S.I. (ii) Under Section 307 IPC – 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine further 1 month S.I. (iii) Under Section 326/149 IPC– 4 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine further 1 month S.I. (iv) Under Section 148 IPC – 2 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine further 15 days S.I. (D) Accused Shanti, Vimlesh & Pushpa (i) Under Section 302/149 IPC – Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine further 2 months S.I. (ii) Under Section 307/149 IPC – 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine further 1 month S.I. (iii) Under Section 326/149 IPC – 4 years R.I. and a find of Rs.1000/- each in default of payment of fine further 1 month S.I. (iv) Under Section 148 IPC – 2 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine further 15 days S.I. 3. The case of the prosecution was initiated on the 'Parcha Bayan' of Badan Singh S/o Gordhan Singh (Ex.P/1) recorded by the police on 2.11.1997 at 8.50 pm with regard to an incident alleged to have taken place at 5.00 pm. It was stated in the 'Parcha Bayan' that in the evening at about 5.00 pm Badan Singh, Lala Ram and Banney Singh, all real brothers, were going to the jungle and as soon as they reached the road they heard a hue and cry of Shiv Singh and Banno Singh. Thereafter all the three persons went towards that place and saw Shiv Singh running to the village. Banno and Satish, father and the son, had been put on the ground and Kanhaiya, Mahendra and Mahaveer were giving blows by 'Farsa' and Favda. Further, it was stated that Satish, Udham Singh, Netrapal, Randheer, Santi and wifes of Mahaveer and Mahendra were giving blows by 'Lathis' and 'Farsas'. It was also stated in the Parcha Bayan that when the said persons were asked not to quarrel then they replied that Banno would be done to death. Such a thing was objected to by the three brothers and they tried to intervene, as a result of which the accused Mahaveer, Mahendra, Uddam Singh, Netrapal, Randheer Singh and Kanhiya inflicted injuries to them on head, left elbow and wrist. Banno died on account of the injuries sustained by him during the course of incident. The quarrel is said to have taken place on account of demolition of 'Med' (land between two fields). 4. On the aforesaid Parcha Bayan, a first information report No.231/97 (Ex.P/2) came to be registered at Police Station Udhyog Nagar, Bharatpur for the offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 IPC. Thereafter, the investigation commenced and the police inspected the place of incident and prepared the Naksha Moka (Ex.P/3). The statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Badan Singh (Ex.D-1), Shalendra (Ex.D-2) and Lala Ram (Ex.D-3) came to be recorded on 2.11.1997. The statement of Satsih Chand (Ex.D-7) was recorded by the police on 22.11.1997. The Panchayat Nama of the deceased Banno was also prepared and the postmortem report (Ex.P-21) was prepared on 3.11.1997 by Dr. B. L. Meena (PW.17). The injured persons from the complainant side, were then examined and their medico legal reports were prepared – Ex.P/22, Ex.P/23, Ex.P/24 and Ex.P/25. The Panchayat Nama of the deceased Banno was also prepared and the postmortem report (Ex.P-21) was prepared on 3.11.1997 by Dr. B. L. Meena (PW.17). The injured persons from the complainant side, were then examined and their medico legal reports were prepared – Ex.P/22, Ex.P/23, Ex.P/24 and Ex.P/25. The medical examination of accused Mahaveer (Ex.D-11A), Mahendra (Ex.D-12A), Udham Singh (Ex.D-13A), Kanhiya (Ex.D-14A) and Netrapal (Ex.D-15A) was conducted by Dr. B. L. Meena (PW.17). Another medical report of appellant Kanhaiya (Ex.D-19A), his admission ticket in SMS Hospital (Ex.D-20A), consent for operation (Ex.D-24A) and his xray reports (Ex.D-26A and D-27A) were also collected by the police. The investigating agency also took blood stained mud and plain mud from the alleged place of incident (Ex.P-11 and Ex.P-12). Accused Mahaveer was then arrested (Ex.P-24A) on 3.11.1997, accused Mahendra was arrested (Ex.P-21A) on 5.11.1997, accused Udham Singh was arrested (Ex.P-20A) on 5.11.1997, accused Kanhiya Lal was arrested (Ex.P-19A) on 5.11.1997, accused Randhir was arrested (Ex.P-23A) on 6.11.1997 and accused Netrapal was arrested (Ex.P-18A) on 7.11.1997. On the information of the accused-persons, the weapons of offence were seized (Ex.P-7, P-8, P-9 etc.). Alongwith the medico legal reports, x-ray plats and the x-ray reports of the injured were also taken on record by the Investigating Agency. On conclusion of the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against all the accused-appellants before the concerning Magistrate on 21.1.1998 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307 and 302 IPC. 5. The case was then committed to the Court of Sessions which came to be transferred to learned District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bharatpur for the trial. The trial of the case commenced when the learned Court below considered the evidence on record and framed charges against accused Kanhaiya, Mahendra, Mahaveer for the offences under Sections 148, 302, 302/149, 325/149, 323, 326/149, 307/149 and 326 IPC. As against accused Udham Singh, charges were framed for the offences under Sections 148, 302, 302/149, 325/149, 323, 326/194 and 307 IPC. The learned trial Court framed charges against accused Shanti, Vimlesh and Pushpa for the offences under Sections 148, 302, 302/149, 325/149, 323, 326/149, 307/149 IPC. The charges so framed were read over and explained to the accused-persons, which were denied by them and claimed for trial. The learned trial Court framed charges against accused Shanti, Vimlesh and Pushpa for the offences under Sections 148, 302, 302/149, 325/149, 323, 326/149, 307/149 IPC. The charges so framed were read over and explained to the accused-persons, which were denied by them and claimed for trial. The prosecution had, in support of its case, produced 23 witnesses which included injured witnesses; eye7 witnesses; recovery witnesses; the witnesses of inquest report; site plan; the witnesses who prepared medico legal report; postmortem report; witnesses relating to the arrest of the accused; seizure memos and the Investigating Officer. Further, the prosecution produced 29 documents, collected during the investigation, and the same were duly exhibited by the trial Court. On completion of prosecution evidence, the learned trial Court recorded the statements of the accused-persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they had stated that the witnesses are not telling the truth and when the complainant party was inflicting injuries to their father that they went to save him and they were also given beating. In support of their defence, the accused-appellants produced 27 documents which included their medico legal reports, documents relating to their medical treatment in SMS Hospital, x-ray reports etc. The accusedappellants had also examined three witnesses in their defence which included Dr. R. S. Mittal (DW.2) Professor and Unit Head, Neurosurgery Department, SMS Hospital, Jaipur who had examined accused Kanhaiya and proved the documents D-19A to D-27A. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Court below convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences aforementioned. 6. The learned counsel for the accused-appellants had raised a number of contentions before us, so as to assail the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and has made an endeavor to show that the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellants is wholly illegal and not sustainable in law, as the prosecution has not only failed to prove its case but the same is doubtful on account of various reasons. Therefore, he has submitted that the accused-appellants deserve to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. The learned counsel for the accused-appellants has read before us, extensively, the evidence on record to show that the accused-appellants themselves have received a large number of injuries which are not at all explained by the prosecution. Therefore, he has submitted that the accused-appellants deserve to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. The learned counsel for the accused-appellants has read before us, extensively, the evidence on record to show that the accused-appellants themselves have received a large number of injuries which are not at all explained by the prosecution. He has referred to evidence on record so as to show that the case of the prosecution, as it originated from the Parcha Bayan and from the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency has been given a total u-turn at the time of trial before the Court below, leading to a drastic change in the prosecution case and improvements in prosecution evidence as deposed by their witnesses. According to him, there exists major contradictions and omissions in the case of the prosecution as given out by the police and by the prosecution, during the course of trial. 7. He has emphasized on the point that the prosecution has not come out with the true genesis of the occurrence, as from the material on record as well as large number of injuries, including that of serious nature, sustained by accused-persons reveals that it was the complainant party who were the aggressors. The prosecution has failed to establish the place of incident or the same has been changed by it. The learned counsel for the accused-appellants has also submitted that the prosecution has also failed to connect the accused-appellants from the alleged crime because the fact that the weapon of offence seized and had been used at the time of occurrence or that the place of incident was the one revealed by the blood stained mud, has not been established because the same had not been corroborated by any FSL report even though many articles were sent for the purpose. In the last, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that the story suggested by the accused-appellants in their defence is much more probable, in the facts and circumstances of the case as reflected from the material on record, which also goes to show that the complainant party were the aggressors and the accused-appellants had inflicted injuries to them in exercise of right of private defence so as to save their elderly father who was being assaulted by the other side. 8. 8. On the other side, the learned Public Prosecutor has fully supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. She has submitted that the prosecution case, as disclosed by the Parcha Bayan of Badan Singh as well as the material collected during the course of investigation and the prosecution evidence which has come on record during the course of trial, establishes beyond reasonable doubts that it was the accused-appellants who had committed the crime by inflicting injuries on the members of the complainant party as a result of which Banno died. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the injured eye-witnesses have fully proved the prosecution case and there is no reason to cast any shadow of doubt on their testimony only on account of some minor contradictions or omissions. She has led much emphasis on the injuries sustained by the members of the complainant party as well as the deceased which were caused by various weapons, duly recovered at the instances of the accused-persons. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellants may be affirmed by this Court. 9. We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the counsels for the rival parties and have carefully perused the material on record of the learned trial Court, particularly, the statements of the prosecution witnesses as well as the medical evidence on record, including that of the accused-appellants and also the Naksha Moka, in the light of the prosecution version. 10. The prosecution case, from the very inception, was that when the informant Badan Singh and his two brothers were going to the jungle, they heard a cry of some persons quarreling coming from the agricultural fields of Shiv Singh and Banno. Thereafter, all the three persons reached the place of occurrence and saw Shiv Singh running towards the village and Banno and his son Satish were lying on the ground who were being beaten by the accused-persons by 'Farshas' and 'Favadas'. According to the prosecution case, the sons as well as the wife of Kanaihya and the wives of Mahavir and Mahendra were also among the assailants. When the informant and his brothers intervened and asked not to quarrel, they were given beating. According to the prosecution case, the sons as well as the wife of Kanaihya and the wives of Mahavir and Mahendra were also among the assailants. When the informant and his brothers intervened and asked not to quarrel, they were given beating. The dispute is said to have taken place on account of breaking the med between the fields of Kanaihya, Banno and Shiv Singh. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, the evidence with regard to the incident was collected and the statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded by the police. The prosecution case was then sought to be proved by the statements of their witnesses as recorded before the trial Court. In the instant case, the facts and circumstances of all the three stages namely; as given in the first information report recorded on the Parcha Bayan of Badan Singh; the material collected during the course of investigation particularly, the statements of prosecution witnesses and in the last, the deposition before the learned trial Court, needs to be examined meticulously because at all the stages there is a lack of consistency. 11. It is noteworthy that five of the accused-persons, which cover all the male members sustained injuries on various parts of the body; of different nature and caused by sharp as well as blunt weapons. Even according to the prosecution evidence on record, the fact that the accused were having injuries on their person was noted in their arrest memo (Ex.P-18A to Ex.P-21 and Ex.P-24A). (i) Accused Mahaveer Singh S/o Kanhaiya was medically examined (Ex.D/11A) and was found to have sustained the following injuries : “(1) Lacerated wound 2x1.5 cm skin deep on Lt. eye brow with fresh clotted blood, by blunt weapon. (2) Lacerated wound 2x ½ cm S. D. on Lt. frontal region with fresh clotted blood, by blunt weapon. (3) Abraded bruise 2 x 1.5 cm on Rt. Occipital area. (4) Abrasion ½ x ½ cm on Rt. Parietal area, by blunt weapon. (5) Abrasion 6 x 1.5 cm on Rt. forearm mid 1/3 Anterior, by blunt weapon. (6) Abrasion 2 x 2 cm on Rt. iliac cranial parietal area, by blunt weapon. ” (ii) Accused Mahendra Singh S/o Kanhaiya sustained following injuries, as revealed from the medico legal report (Ex.D/12A) : “(1) Vertical lacerated wound 6 x 1.5 cm x bone deep on Rt. forearm mid 1/3 Anterior, by blunt weapon. (6) Abrasion 2 x 2 cm on Rt. iliac cranial parietal area, by blunt weapon. ” (ii) Accused Mahendra Singh S/o Kanhaiya sustained following injuries, as revealed from the medico legal report (Ex.D/12A) : “(1) Vertical lacerated wound 6 x 1.5 cm x bone deep on Rt. Parietal area with fresh clotted blood, by blunt weapon and advised for 'x' ray. (2) Vertical lacerated wound 5 x 1 cm x bone deep on L t. fronto parietal area with fresh clotted blood diffuse swelling, by blunt weapon. (3) Vertical incised wound 5 x ½ cm x scalp tissue deep on Lt frontal area medial with clean cut edge and cutting of hairs bulb with oozing of blood, by sharp weapon. (4) Vertical incised wound 4.5 x ½ cm x scalp tissue deep on Lt parietal area with oozing of blood and clean cut edge seen, by sharp weapon. . (5) Red bruise 4 x 2 cm on Rt. forearm mid 1/3rd back, by blunt weapon. (6) Swelling 5 x 4 cm on Lt. forearm mid 1/3rd back, by blunt weapon. ” (iii) Accused Udham Singh S/o Kanhaiya sustained following injuries and he was medically examined (Ex.D/13A) : “(1) Vertical cut wound 10 x 2.5 cm x bone cut deep with ligament visible on Lt occipital and parietal area with cutting and fracture of Lt. parietal bone seen with clean cut regular and well defined edge in hairs bulb found cut and oozing of blood profusing out, grievous\and dangerous to life and by sharp weapon. (2) Red bruise 6 x 2 cm on Rt. scapular area upper part with local tenderness and swelling, by blunt weapon and advised for x-ray. (3) Abrasion 1 x 1 cm on Lt litter finger, by blunt weapon. (4) Punctured lacerated wound ½ x ½ B.D. on Lt. Foot antero with diffuse swelling, by blunt weapon and advised for 'x' ray” (iv) Accused Kanhaiya S/o Durgee had sustained following injuries and he was medically examined (Ex.D/14A) : “(1) Vertical lacerated wound 4 x ½ cm x bonedeep on Lt. parieto occipital area with oozing of blood and swelling, by blunt weapon and advised for 'x' ray. (2) Vertical incised wound 3 x ½ into sculp tissue deep on 1 cm back to elbow one with clean cut edge and oozing of blood by sharp weapon. parieto occipital area with oozing of blood and swelling, by blunt weapon and advised for 'x' ray. (2) Vertical incised wound 3 x ½ into sculp tissue deep on 1 cm back to elbow one with clean cut edge and oozing of blood by sharp weapon. (3) Trans incised wound 2.5 x 1 ½ bone deep on Lt. forehead above eye brow with fresh oozing of blood and clean cut edge and swelling, by sharp weapon and advised for 'x' ray. (4) Vertical incised wound 6 x 1.5 cm x bone deep on Rt. forearm lower 1/3rd medially with clean cut margins well defined with oozing of blood, by sharp weapon and advised for 'x' ray. (5) Oblique lacerated wound 3.5 x ½ cm x s. d. on Lt. index finger proximal phalanx back, by blunt weapon and advised for 'x' ray. (6) Abrasion 3 x 1.5 cm on back of Lt. elbow with red, by sharp weapon and advised for 'x' ray, by blunt weapon. (7) Red bruise 6 x 2.5 cm on Lt. buttock mid part.“ (v) Netrapal S/o Kanhaiya sustained following injuries and he was medically examined (Ex.D/15A) : “(1) Lacerated wound 3 x ½ cm x scalp tissue deep on mid vertex at parietal area with fresh clotted blood and swelling, by blunt weapon. (2) Red bruise 4 x 2 cm on Rt. scapular with swelling on Rt. shoulder, by blunt weapon and advised for 'x' ray. (3) Vertical incised wound 10 x 5 cm x ? bone deep on Lt. shoulder joint ante lateral aspect with fresh oozing of blood and clean cut margin and well defined edges and swelling, by sharp weapon and advised for 'x' ray. (4) Red bruise 4 x 2 cm on Rt. thigh mid 1/3 back, by blunt weapon. He was operated for cronix sub dural Hemotoma by Dr. V.S. Dutta. It was opined by Dr. R. S. Mittal (DW-2) that the hemotoma was dangerous to life.” It is to be noted that the medical examination of all the aforesaid accused-persons was got conducted by the police on 2.11.1997 itself. A perusal of the injuries sustained by the accused party goes to show that they were all over the body including the vital parts like parietal region and they had been caused by sharp as well as by blunt weapon. A perusal of the injuries sustained by the accused party goes to show that they were all over the body including the vital parts like parietal region and they had been caused by sharp as well as by blunt weapon. Accused Udham Singh had sustained injuries, by a sharp edged weapon on parietal area which was found to be grievous and also dangerous to life. Likewise, amongst the injuries on the accused Kanhaiya by sharp edged weapon on the forehead and parietal region, xray was advised. Injured-accused Kanhaiya was referred to SMS Hospital (Ex.20A) and consent was obtained from him for conducting operation (Ex.24A). The operation note is Ex.D/27A and other documents like CT Scan (Ex.28A), discharge ticket (Ex.30A) etc are on record. 12. All the aforesaid medico legal reports of the injuries sustained by the accused persons were prepared, on police request, by Dr. B. L. Meena (PW.17). He has given a detailed description with regard to injuries sustained by the accused and their nature. Further, it is significant that Dr. B. L. Meena (PW.17) has specifically stated that injuries on the persons whose medico legal reports are from Ex.D-11A to Ex.D-15A, i.e. to say the accused-persons, and the injuries in medico legal report from Ex.P/21 to Ex.P/26, of the members of complainant party, should be related to one incident. Further, the learned trial Court, in para No.12, has given the following findings : ^^;g rks ,d Lohdk;Z rF; gS fd eqfYte dugs;k o mlds iq= egkohj] egsUnz] mn;flag o us=iky ds Hkh pksVs vkbZ Fkh vkSj os pksVsa blh ?kVuk ls lEcfU/kr Fkh vkSj mldk eqdíek Qfj;knhi{k ds f[kykQ blh vnkyr esa py jgk gSA** 13. Further, a look to the evidence on record particularly, the statements of injured witnesses of the prosecution goes to show that they have totally denied to have caused any injury on the accused-persons much less to say, to have explained the same. Infact, the injured prosecution witnesses have even gone to the extent of saying that they are unaware about the injuries sustained by the members of the accused party. Badan Singh (PW.1) has deposed that he had not seen any injury on the person of the accused Kanhaiya, Mahendra, Udham Singh, Netrapal and Mahaveer. Infact, the injured prosecution witnesses have even gone to the extent of saying that they are unaware about the injuries sustained by the members of the accused party. Badan Singh (PW.1) has deposed that he had not seen any injury on the person of the accused Kanhaiya, Mahendra, Udham Singh, Netrapal and Mahaveer. The prosecution witness Shailendra Singh (PW.2) has also stated that it is wrong to say that when accused Mahaveer and others came from their huts to save Kanhaiya, he had inflected any injury on them. Further, deposed that he had not seen any injury on Kanhaiya and it is incorrect to say that Mahaveer, Kanhaiya, Netrapal were ever referred to the hospital at Bharatpur. Likewise, injured Lalaram (PW.3) has stated that he had not seen any injury on the person of Kanhaiya and other accused persons. He had denied the fact regarding inflicting injury by Farsa on the wrist of the accused Kanhaiya and also on the left eye of Mahaveer. But he has admitted the fact regarding pendency of a criminal case against them for causing injuries to the accused-persons, in the same court. Injured witness Shiv Singh (PW.4) had stated that it is incorrect to say that the accused persons sustained injuries in the same incident. The prosecution witness Banney Singh (PW.5), also an injured witness, has stated that on the day of incident no beating was given to Kanhaiya and he did not see any injury on his person. Further, he has stated that he did not see any injury on the person of Mahaveer and Udham Singh. Similarly, injured prosecution witness Satish (PW.6) had also stated that he did not see any injury on the person of Mahaveer, Kanhaiya etc. He has further stated that the accused had inflicted injuries at their own hands and were got admitted in the hospital. It is also stated by Satish that they had not caused any injury and that he does not know as to whether any injuries were sustained by the accused persons or not. So far as the fact regarding pendency of the cross case is concerned, the prosecution witness Satish has admitted the same. He has also stated that case with regard to causing injury to the accused is going on but they had not caused any injuries. 14. So far as the fact regarding pendency of the cross case is concerned, the prosecution witness Satish has admitted the same. He has also stated that case with regard to causing injury to the accused is going on but they had not caused any injuries. 14. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and the fact that despite of the evidence on record by way of injury reports as well as the statement of medical jurist and the findings given by the learned trial Court itself that the accused person had sustained injuries in the same incident and this fact had been totally denied by the complainant party, much less to say that the same has been explained by them. It is relevant to refer here the settled principles of law as to what inference is to be drawn in such a situation. 15. After having considered the relevant principles of law, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Singh & Others vs. State of Bihar, 1976(4) SCC 394 , had laid down the principles of law as follows : “It seems to us 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 in a 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 it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. 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 witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one.” The aforesaid principles laid down in the case of Lakshmi Singh (supra) has further been explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1979 SC 1010 , by laying down that “ “It is true that where serious injuries are found on the person of the accused, as a principle of appreciation of evidence, it becomes obligatory on the prosecution to explain the injuries, so as to satisfy the Court as to the circumstances under which the occurrence originated. But before this obligation is placed on the prosecution, two conditions must be satisfied : 1. that the injuries on the person of the accused must be very serious and severe and not superficial; 2. that it must be shown that these injuries must have been caused at the time of the occurrence in question.” In the instant case, the aforesaid conditions are satisfied. It is established that the injuries were caused during the altercation which had resulted in the death of the deceased. The injuries sustained by the accused party are not superficial and rather many of them were found to be serious in nature. 16. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Madho & Anr., AIR 1991 SC 1065 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under : “If the prosecution witnesses shy away from the reality and do not explain the injuries caused to the respondents herein it casts 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. It gives the impression that the witnesses are suppressing some part of the incident. The High Court was, therefore, of the opinion that having regard to the fact that they have failed to explain the injuries sustained by the two respondents in the course of the same transaction, the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the doubt as it was hazard-ous to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the injured PW 2.” In the case of Ram Phal & Others vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1993 SC 1979 , the Hon'ble Apex Court had reiterated thus : “In this appeal learned counsel submits that the prosecution has not explained so many injuries on the accused persons and, therefore, they have not come out with the whole truth as to the genesis of the occurrence and on the other hand the plea of the accused that they inflicted injuries on the deceased in exercise of their right of self-defence must be accepted and they should be given the benefit of doubt. In this context it has to be noted that as a matter of fact, the accused went to the Police early and informed about the occurrence. It is unfortunate that the deceased though received only one injury dies as the same resulted in the fracture of skull bones. Having regard to the specific plea put forward by the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. there is no reason why it should be rejected outright. In this context, it has to be noted that the accused need not establish their right beyond all reasonable doubt. It is enough if a reasonable doubt arises on examination of the probabilities of the case. In the instant case we have seen that the accused persons received fairly number of injuries. Some of them were on vital parts. The prosecution has no plausible explanation. In such a situation, the plea put forward by the accused appears to be quite probable and, therefore, it cannot be rejected. The next question is whether they have exceeded the right of private defence. Only one overt act is attributed to A-1. It is clear that he inflicted only one injury and dealt one blow on his head. Therefore, in such a situation, it cannot be said that the act of A-1 is not in conformity with the limitations laid down in Section 100, IPC. Only one overt act is attributed to A-1. It is clear that he inflicted only one injury and dealt one blow on his head. Therefore, in such a situation, it cannot be said that the act of A-1 is not in conformity with the limitations laid down in Section 100, IPC. In the result we give the benefit of doubt to all the accused as such. We are of the view that they have not exceeded the right of self-defence. The appeal is allowed. If the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The sentences of fine are also set aside.” 17. This takes us to another important limb of the present case as to whether the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and the manner in which the incident had taken place, reflected from the evidence of the prosecution, because the accused have not only been severely assaulted by the members of the complainant party but they have also tried to change the place of incident in order to make out their case. From the evidence on record, as had come during the course of trial broadly speaking the case of the prosecution is that the incident took place at Point-A, given in the 'Naksha Moka' (Ex.P/3), when the accused Kanhaiya was working in his field and it is alleged that he had broken the med. Thereafter the members of the complainant party went towards the village and the accused-persons came and gave beating at the Point-B, which is about 110 steps from Point-A. Therefore, blood stained mud was taken up from Point-B. Further, the case of the prosecution is that at the place marked as Point-C, beating was given to injured Satish and blood is said to have been found at that place also. The version given by the accused is that when Kanhaiya was working in his field at Point-A, towards the water channel which is marked as S to S/1, that the members of the complainant party objected and the quarrel took place. Thereafter, when the accused was coming towards his residence at Point-D that the members of the complainant party intercepted and gave beating. After hearing the hue and cry, other members of the accused party came from their huts situated nearby and they were also beaten by the complainant party. 18. Thereafter, when the accused was coming towards his residence at Point-D that the members of the complainant party intercepted and gave beating. After hearing the hue and cry, other members of the accused party came from their huts situated nearby and they were also beaten by the complainant party. 18. As given out hereinabove, in para No.13, the prosecution witnesses have suppressed the truth by totally denying about the injuries sustained by the accused persons whereas looking to the nature of injuries, they ought to have explained the same. Further a look at the statements of Badan Singh (PW.1), Shailendra Singh (PW.2), Lalaram (PW.3), Shiv Shingh (PW.4), Banney Singh (PW.5) and Satish (PW.6), referred above, goes to show that they have not disclosed the facts pertaining to the manner in which the incident had taken place. Their version in this regard before the trial Court is different from the one given during the investigation which is revealed from the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-7). Moreover, as per the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the dispute arose at Point-A in Ex.P/3 where the accused Kanhaiya, while working in his field, had broken the med. Thereafter, the members of the complainant party went towards the village and the accused persons had beaten them at Point-B. In case, the accused Kanhaiya had broken the med near Point-A and the members of the complainant party were present there, then some sort of scuffle must have taken place on the obvious objection raised by the members of the complainant party against the accused Kanhaiya for having encroached upon the med. It does not appeal to logic that while having seen the accused breaking their med, the members of the complainant party would come towards the village without raising any objection/resentment at Point-A and that the other accused persons would come and intercept them at Point-B and give beating, even though they had not said anything to accused Kanhaiya, when he had broken their med. Similarly, the case of the prosecution appears to be doubtful that while the members of the complainant party were proceeding towards the village, Satish was beaten at Point-C in Ex.P/3. Similarly, the case of the prosecution appears to be doubtful that while the members of the complainant party were proceeding towards the village, Satish was beaten at Point-C in Ex.P/3. It is to be noted that injured Satish (PW.6) had stated that it is incorrect to say that marpeet took place in 'Dagara', i.e. at Point-C. As against the case of the prosecution, the version given by the accused appears to be probable that when Kanhaiya was working in the field near Point-A, the members of the complainant party objected and a scuffle took place. Thereafter, when the said accused was coming towards his residence at Point-D that he was intercepted by complainant party and given beating. After hearing the cry of the accused Kanhaiya, the other members of the accused party rushed from their huts situated at Point-D and a scuffle took place between both the parties. Therefore, we are of the view that the aforesaid prosecution witnesses have not given true version of the incident by suppressing the part played by them in assaulting the members of the accused party and they have also changed the place of incident. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were guilty of the offences, alleged against them. 19. In a similar situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar & Another vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1998 SC 1437 , had held in para No.12 as under : “As we find that Pws-7 and 8 have not described the incident truly by suppressing the part played by them in assaulting Raj Kumar and Ram Kumar, and as they have also changed the place of incident in order to make out a case of aggression by the appellants they cannot be regarded as reliable witnesses and their evidence cannot be accepted without independent corroboration. Mehtab Singh (sic) and Tara Chand, who were independent witnesses, were dropped as unnece-ssary witnesses. Mehtab Singh (sic) and Tara Chand, who were independent witnesses, were dropped as unnece-ssary witnesses. On re-appreciation of the evidence we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were guilty of the offences for which they were tried.” In the case of Boddella Babul Reddy vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 3 SCC 648 , after relying on the case of Ram Sunder Yadav vs. State of Bihar, (1998) 7 SCC 365 , the Supreme Court has held in para No.20 as under : “As held in Ram Sunder Yadav vs. State of Bihar, this Court has held that though in all the cases, the prosecution was not obliged to explain the injuries, the prosecution has to however explain the injuries on the accused, where the evidence consists of interested and inimical witnesses and where defence alleges a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. Therefore, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the injuries on Yeddula Sankar Reddy (A-8) and Yeddula Prabhakar Reddy (A-14) were not explained by the prosecution. It is on this basis that the trial court entertained a doubt about the version of the prosecution.” 20. Apart from it, in order to establish that the incident took place at Point-B, the prosecution had come out with a case that blood was lying there and, therefore, blood stained mud was taken from that point. But it is noteworthy that there is no report of laboratory examination to corroborate the fact that human blood was found in the mud taken by the police, much less to say that it was that of members of the complainant party. In the case of State of U.P. vs. Nathu & Ors., 2003(1) WLC (SC) Cr. 178, the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed, in para No.8, as under : “Neither the exact place of occurrence has been disclosed by the prosecution. Significantly, be it noted that though there was recovery of the blood soaked earth, but the same was not sent for chemical examination. This failure to obtain the report of the chemical analyser has been strongly taken exception to by the High Court. We cannot also but lend our concurrence to the same since that would have definitely advanced the case in support of the prosecution. This failure to obtain the report of the chemical analyser has been strongly taken exception to by the High Court. We cannot also but lend our concurrence to the same since that would have definitely advanced the case in support of the prosecution. Admittedly, Gaya Datt being the father of the accused persons and respondent No.1, also suffered injuries caused by the spade in the hands of PW.3.” 21. Besides, on an overall consideration of the statements of the prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that there is major inconsistency in it with regard to the specific role of the accused persons in inflicting injuries to the members of the complainant party; the place of incident and how and when they had reached there. They have rather given different version in respect of the genesis of the occurrence. A bare perusal of the prosecution evidence on record goes to show that even the 'Parcha Bayan' (Ex.P/1) does not specify the injuries inflicted by the accused and the weapons used by them. Similar is the situation in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, recorded at the time of investigation, (Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/6) where the author of the injuries on the complainant party has not been clearly disclosed. Above all, the prosecution witnesses had denied or pleaded ignorance, much less to say to give explanation, in respect of injuries sustained by the accused persons which included grievous in nature and dangerous to life and caused by blunt as well as sharp weapons (Ex.D-11A to Ex.D-15A). 22. A careful perusal of the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded by the trial Court further makes the prosecution story doubtful because they have made improvements in the version given by them during the course of investigation, particularly in respect of the injuries inflicted on them by the accused persons. All the prosecution witnesses have changed and made improvements in narration of facts with regard to the place of incident (Ex.P/3), during the course of trial. Likewise, the prosecution witnesses have made changes and improvements in the earlier version given during the course of investigation, in respect of the manner in which the incident took place. All the prosecution witnesses have changed and made improvements in narration of facts with regard to the place of incident (Ex.P/3), during the course of trial. Likewise, the prosecution witnesses have made changes and improvements in the earlier version given during the course of investigation, in respect of the manner in which the incident took place. It would not be out of place to mention here that though, as per the prosecution case reflected from the statements of Lalaram (PW.3) and Banney Singh (PW.5), other persons from the village had collected at the time of incident but none of them were made witnesses by the prosecution. Therefore, all the prosecution witnesses who were related and interested, made omissions; improvements and gave contradictory statements during the trial and as such they do not inspire confidence which makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. On the contrary, the defence story is more probablised from the evidence produced in defence and on consideration of overall material produced by the prosecution. 23. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and we do not consider it necessary to discuss the other contentions raised before us by the learned defence counsel. On consideration of Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/1), material on record as collected by the investigating agency and the prosecution evidence produced before the learned trial Court, it is clear that the prosecution has not come out with true genesis of the occurrence and the manner in which the incident had taken place. On the contrary, consideration of the prosecution evidence on record coupled with the evidence produced by the accused side, rather probablise the defence version that the accused persons had not picked up the quarrel nor had raised the dispute at the time of incident. The medical evidence on record with regard to the injuries/damaged caused to the members of the accused party rather shows that they were more effected at the hands of the complainants. Even otherwise, the prosecution has failed to connect the accused persons with the commission of the crime on the basis of legal evidence. It has not been established beyond doubt that the accused persons had used the weapon alleged and that the incident took place at Point-B (Ex.P/3), in absence of any corroborative evidence by way of laboratory reports. Even otherwise, the prosecution has failed to connect the accused persons with the commission of the crime on the basis of legal evidence. It has not been established beyond doubt that the accused persons had used the weapon alleged and that the incident took place at Point-B (Ex.P/3), in absence of any corroborative evidence by way of laboratory reports. The version of the defence is rather convincing that the incident occurred because of the complainant party who had come at Point-A when Kanhaiya the father of the other accused persons was working and they had surrounded him. It was on account of the efforts made by the remaining accused persons to save their father that they assaulted the members of the complainant party, causing injuries to them. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court cannot be sustained, as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt and to connect the accused-appellants with the commission of the crime. The accused-appellants deserves to be acquitted from all the charges levelled against them. 24. Consequently, appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 18.12.2002 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No.124/2001 is set aside. Accused-appellants are acquitted of all the charges framed against them. Appellants Mahendra S/o Kanhaiya and Mahaveer S/o Kanhaiya are in judicial custody. They be set at liberty forthwith, if their custody is not required in any other case. Appellants Kanhaiya S/o Durgee, Udham Singh S/o Kanhaiya, Shanti W/o Kanhaiya, Vimlesh W/o Mahaveer and Pushpa Devi W/o Mahendra Singh are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. They need not to surrender.