Dharnidhar Jha, J.;- 1. The present appeal was preferred by 7 appellants who had been put on trial by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur by being charged together under sections 147, 323/149 and 302/149 I.P.C. The appellants were held guilty of committing offences they had been charged with and each of them was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 147 I.P.C., six months under section 323/149 I.P.C. and also for life under section 302/149 I.P.C. During the pendency of present appeal, appellant no. 1 Jokhai, appellant No.3 Nachakau, appellant no.5 Kinka and appellant no.6 Sadhu were reported dead as such their appeals abated by orders passed on different dates, leaving the present appeal against three surviving appellants, i.e., appellant no. 2 Chaitu, appellant no. 4 Kishana and appellant no. 7 Dhorha. 2. The prosecution case is contained in Ex.Ka-1, the written report of PW-1 Gomti, who happened to be the uncle of the deceased Rajmani alias Bihari. It was stated by the informant that on 1-2-1980 at about 8:00 in the night he and the deceased were irrigating their field, when deceased appellant Jokhai came and told PW-1 that he will take water into his own field. On this issue there was some altercation between the parties as also some scuffle between them which ended by the intervention of Vishwanath, PW-2 and Sikandar PW-3, who separated the two fighting persons, i.e., PW-1 and the deceased appellant Jokhai. It was stated by PW-1 that, he thereafter, alongwith the deceased nephew Rajmani son of Girja Prasad became engaged again in irrigating their fields. However, deceased appellant Jokhai went to his house to come back again to the field alongwith remaining appellants and started assaulting the informant PW-1 and the deceased, his nephew with lathi-danda, legs and fists. It was specifically alleged that the appellant Chaitu gave lathi blows to Rajmani as a result of which he fell down whereupon the deceased appellant Kinka mounted upon his chest and started assaulting him with legs while others continued giving blows with lathi, legs and fists. It was stated that the same set of persons, i.e., PW-1 Gomti, PW-2 Vishwanath and PW-3 Sikandar, intervened into it alongwith Hinchh Narayan, Jagannath and Surajbali ( all not examined) and due to their intervention accused persons went away to their house. It was stated that the same set of persons, i.e., PW-1 Gomti, PW-2 Vishwanath and PW-3 Sikandar, intervened into it alongwith Hinchh Narayan, Jagannath and Surajbali ( all not examined) and due to their intervention accused persons went away to their house. The informant stated that Rajmani became unconscious and because, it was night the deceased could not be brought to the police station for lodging report and while he was being brought to the police station he died on the way, as such the dead body had been brought to the police station to file a written report. 3. On the basis of Ex. Ka-1, first information report of the case Ex.Ka-5 was drawn up by constable Moharrir, Lal Bahadur Singh at the orders of PW-6 in his presence and he took up investigation of the case. PW-6 observed the body of PW-1 Gomti and recorded the injuries by dictating it to constable clerk posted in the police station and that record has been brought Ex.K-6. He, at the same time, issued requisition for examining PW-1 and sent the same alongwith injured PW-1 to the hospital. The requisition issued to the doctor for examining PW-1 has been marked Ex. Ka-7. 4. PW-6, thereafter, recorded the statement of PW-1 and the other witnesses, like, Vishwanath PW-2 and Sikandar PW-3 and others who had accompanied PW-1 and held inquest upon the dead body by preparing inquest report Ex. Ka-9. He prepared the sketch of the dead body as also challan Ex. Ka-13 and Ka-14 respectively and dispatched the dead body for post mortem examination to PW-5 Dr. V.J. Khanna. He also inspected the place of occurrence and prepared a sketch map Ex.Ka-15. During that course, he found blood stains at the place of occurrence and obtained the sample of the same by sealing it by preparing seizure memo Ex.Ka-16. PW-6, the investigating officer, looked into the documents, relating to the land which was being irrigated by the informant and the deceased, which was lying in the custody of the record keeper of the revenue department and obtained the maps of field Exts., Ka-1 and Ka-18 from him by getting it prepared in his presence. He again came back to the village where the offence had taken place and seized the blood stained clothes which were worn by PW-1, informant and it was marked during examination of PW-5 material Exts. He again came back to the village where the offence had taken place and seized the blood stained clothes which were worn by PW-1, informant and it was marked during examination of PW-5 material Exts. 4 and 5. PW-6 further stated that he also obtained the clothes which were on the dead body at the time of holding of inquest by him and those were sent to him by the Chief Medical Officer and those clothes were marked material as Exts. Ka-6 and Ka.9. The Chief Medical Officer had also sent to P.W.-6 with the constables who had accompanied the dead body, the post mortem report. The blood stained earth and the blood stained clothes were separately sent to the chemical analyst for analysis report. After finding materials sufficient PW-6 sent the accused persons who were convicted by the learned trial court, for their trial. 5. The defence of the appellant was that in fact the appellant Jokhai had been assaulted by the informant and the deceased on 1-2-1980 and for that the appellant Jokhai has lodged a report at the same police station half and hour prior to lodging of the report by PW-1. It was suggested to PW-1 that infact when appellant Jokhai was attempting to divert water into his own field for irrigation it was obstructed by the deceased and the informant by blocking the flow of water. It was further suggested that the appellant Jokhai removed the obstruction, whereafter the informant and the deceased started assaulting him and in defence of his person, appellant Jokhai wielded blows with lathi. This suggestion was given to PW-1 in paragraphs 74 and 75 which appears at page 55 of the paper book. Thus, it was admitted that appellant Jokhai had wielded lathi blows both on the informant and the deceased. 6. During course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. P.W.1 Gomti was the informant and was also injured on account of receiving blows with lathi as may appear from the evidence of the Dr. Mohd. Tauhid PW-4 who found the following injuries on the body of PW-1 on 2-2-1980 at 8.45 a.m. :- ( 1) Superficial injury in the form of abrasion 1.5 cm x 2 cm in the left upper arm, anteriorly, 8 cm away from the lateral end of the clavicle. Tenderness and signs of inflammation were present. Mohd. Tauhid PW-4 who found the following injuries on the body of PW-1 on 2-2-1980 at 8.45 a.m. :- ( 1) Superficial injury in the form of abrasion 1.5 cm x 2 cm in the left upper arm, anteriorly, 8 cm away from the lateral end of the clavicle. Tenderness and signs of inflammation were present. Similar injury was present in the same upper arm in the middle measuring 2 cm x 3 cm laterally. ( 2) There was blackening of the nail of left ring finger with mark of clotted blood at the margin of the nail. Tenderness and inflammation signs were present. ( 3) Transverse linear skin deep injury of 2.5 cm x ½ cm with blood clot and all signs of inflamation on the dorsal surface of the junction of the first and middle phalanx of the right ring finger. Dried blood was noted by PW-4 in the palm of PW-1. ( 4) Superficial abrasion of 1.5 cm x 2 cm, 5 cm above the hyloid ( sic) process of ulna dorsally in the right forearm. ( 5) Tenderness in the left thigh in the upper part at the bony protuberance posteriorly with sign of inflammation. ( 6) Transverse linear skin deep injury of 4 cm x ½ cm with haircaught in the wound with dried blood clot in front of head, 6.5 cm above the right eye-brow. There was injury 1.5 cm x 2 cm superficial tender on the middle of the head 2 cm left to the mid line. Dried blood clot was also found over the injury by PW-4. ( 8) Pain and tenderness on the right side of the neck without signs of inflammation with two scratch mark was also present. PW-4 issued Ex. Ka-3, his report after examining PW-1 and he was further of the opinion that all the injuries were simple in nature which were caused by hard and blunt substance within 24 hours of his examination of PW-1. 7. PW-2, Vishwanath and PW-3 Sikandar are the witnesses named in the First information report and gave eye witness account of the whole incident. PW-5 Dr. V.J. Khanna held post mortem examination on the dead body of Rajmani alias Bihari on 3-2-1980 and issued post mortem examination report Ex. K-4 in that behalf. 7. PW-2, Vishwanath and PW-3 Sikandar are the witnesses named in the First information report and gave eye witness account of the whole incident. PW-5 Dr. V.J. Khanna held post mortem examination on the dead body of Rajmani alias Bihari on 3-2-1980 and issued post mortem examination report Ex. K-4 in that behalf. PW-6 S. I. Suryabali Singh had investigated the case whereas PW-7, constable Gulab Chandra Tiwari had taken the dead body to the Chief Medical Officer for post mortem examination. 8. The defence also examined single witness, namely, R. Chaudhary, who was posted as Compounder, at the relevant time, in the Jail hospital, Mirzapur and had tendered evidence in the form of production of the injury register maintained in the Hospital and as per his evidence entries were made after examining the appellant Jokhai by the doctor examining the said appellant and those entries were marked as Ex. Kha-3. The purpose of examining the solitary DW was to show to the court that appellant no.1 Jokhai also received injuries on his person. 9. On consideration of the evidence of the prosecution and the defence, the learned trial judge held that the charges were properly established and the appellants were, accordingly, convicted of the charges and sentenced as indicated at the very outset of the present judgment. 10. Sri Devendra Dahma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the prosecution case was highly doubtful and the manner of occurrence was extremely exaggerated. No occurrence, in fact, had taken place in the manner as was alleged by the prosecution. It was contended that appellant Jokhai and others had acted in exercise of their right of private defence and they have falsely been implicated. The next contention was that consideration of evidence would show that there was no statement of any of the witnesses indicative of the fact that assault was given by the appellant with the intention to kill and, as such, the case may be covered by section 304 part I or II or section 325 I.P.C. 11. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the whole story was in two parts. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the whole story was in two parts. First part related to the initial scuffle between PW-1 and the appellant Jokhai and during that course , admittedly, appellant Jokhai had received couple of injuries on his head and back whereafter he went to his village to his house to appear again after 15 -20 minutes at the place of occurrence with other accused when at the remonstration of appellant Jokhai, appellant Chaitu had, first, given blows on the head of the deceased Rajmani, who fell down whereafter the appellant Kinka mounted on the chest of the informant and assaulted him while other appellants also continued giving blows with lathi to the deceased and the informant. In the above background, it was contended, the appellant did not have a right of private defence available to them and the manner of occurrence as described by Pws. 1, 2 and 3 clearly indicated that they were intending to kill the deceased. It was further submitted that the injuries which were found on the deceased by PW-5, Dr. V. J. Khanna were also indicative of the intention by which the act of dealing blows on the deceased was committed by the appellant and, as such, it was clearly a case under section 302 I.P.C. specially when the prosecution evidence is considered in the light of the fact that even the informant was inflicted as many as 8 injuries on his person. 12. The post mortem examination was held by PW-5 Dr. V.J. Khanna on the dead body of Rajmani alias Bihari on 3-2-1980 at 11.00 a.m. and he found following ante mortem injuries on it :- ( 1) Contusion 10 cm x 6 cm on the right frontal region of scalp. ( 2) Traumatic swelling 10 cm x 8 cm on the anterior aspect of left forearm on its upper part. ( 3) Traumatic swelling with abrasion 10 cm x 8 cm on the lower part and back of left fore-arm. ( 4) Contusion in the area of 10 cm x 6 cm on right chest. ( 5) Traumatic swelling 9 cm x 6 cm on the upper part and back of right fore-arm. ( 6) Contusion and swelling 15 cm x 8 cm on the anterior and upper part of right leg. ( 7) Traumatic swelling 5 cm x 2 cm on the back of neck. ( 5) Traumatic swelling 9 cm x 6 cm on the upper part and back of right fore-arm. ( 6) Contusion and swelling 15 cm x 8 cm on the anterior and upper part of right leg. ( 7) Traumatic swelling 5 cm x 2 cm on the back of neck. ( 8) Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm on upper part and back of left leg. 13. On internal examination of the dead body PW-5 found skull fractured which was corresponding to injury no.1 and the fracture was in multiple pieces. Brain membrane were congested and clotted blood was present inside it. Brain was also conjusted on the right side and was found containing clotted blood. Death in the opinion of PW-5 was on account of shock and hemorrhage because of ante mortem injuries recorded by him and particularly due to injury no.1 and further that the death has occurred one day prior to holding of post mortem examination. Thus what appears definitely indicated from the evidence of PW-5 was that the deceased Rajmani had received blows with hard and blunt substance which had caused serious injuries as were recorded by PW-3 especially injury no.1 which had fractured the whole skull bone into pieces. 14. So far as argument that the prosecution story was highly doubtful and that no occurrence had taken place in the manner as was alleged by it is concerned, after having considered the evidence of eye witnesses Pws. 1, 2 and 3, what I came to find in that these persons were highly independent. This was so much so that PW-1 had stated in paragraph no. 21 and 22 that he or the deceased had no enmity with the accused and, further, that before scribing the present written report, he did not have any occasion either to scribe any report to file the prosecution case. while I was going through the evidence of PW-1, specially the description of manner of occurrence which started from paragraph 46 and went on to paragraph 54, what I could find was that the narration given by PW-1 was not only an honest narration, it appears coming from his heart without any malice or ill-will towards the accused persons and that his only concern was to put across the truth and only the true facts which had been perceived by him during the course of occurrence. 15. 15. PW-1 has stated in paragraph 44 onwards that his field was being irrigated by a sub canal which had branched off the main canal and the main canal was situated one mile away from his field. It has been stated that the sub canal which ran up to the field of PW-1 was also crossing by the side of the field of appellant Jokhai and the field of said appellant was prior to the field of PW-1 and if appellant Jokhai would have diverted the flow of the water into his own field, then the field of PW-1 could never be irrigated. It is in this back ground that PW-1 stated further that wheat crop was standing in his field and he was irrigating it. He had on that day irrigated 5 plots of his and he had turned the flow of water into his 6th plot when appellant Jokhai came there and diverted the flow of water into his own field which was the field situated ahead of the field of PW-1 and was situated by the side of sub canal. PW-1, detecting the diversion of water by the appellant Jokhai, started to clear the blockage put into the flow of water to divert it into the field of Jokhai, telling him that as PW-1 was irrigating his own field, appellant Jokhai would not close the flow of water by diverting it into his field. On that occasion appellant Jokhai went away and towards. PW-1 went back to his filed. However, Jokhai again diverted the water by closing the flow into the field of PW-1 who again came to the place and then had ensued the maarpeet and scuffle. Infact PW-1 had used the word 'patka-patki' which indicated as if both PW-1 and appellant Jokhai had grappled with each other and during that course appellant Jokhai fell on the ridge of field of one Ram Narayan. It may further appear that he received the injuries on his head and back. The description of the entire occurrence is further magnified when one had considered the further details of the incident which is given in paragraphs no. 51, 52 and 53 of PW-1 and the real occurrence which ensued after arrival of appellant Jokhai and other appellants after about 15 to 20 minutes of the first incident of grappling in which PW-1 and the deceased were assailed. 51, 52 and 53 of PW-1 and the real occurrence which ensued after arrival of appellant Jokhai and other appellants after about 15 to 20 minutes of the first incident of grappling in which PW-1 and the deceased were assailed. The description of that particular incident appears in paragraphs 54, 55 and 56. On perusal of these paragraphs what I could find was that PW-1 was truly and honestly reproducing the facts while describing the two parts of the occurrence. The facts which could not be stated by him in examination in chief, were stated by him clearly and in some more details which was necessary to be stated before the court so as to informing it as to how the whole incident had taken place. 16. On perusal of the evidence of PW-1 and after considering the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, what I find is that two witnesses Vishwanath and Sikandar, were fully corroborating PW-1 on the most material parts of the incident. The two witnesses had given a very good and acceptable reason for their presence at the place of occurrence. When the whole incident, initial of grappling between appellant no.1 Jokhai and subsequently of giving lathi blows to the deceased and informant had taken place, both Pws. 2 and 3 stated that they were there to irrigate their own fields and which were being irrigated by them by another the sub canal and they had came over to the place of occurrence to inspect as to whether flow of water was obstructed or had been diverted due to breach in the channel or due to washing away of the earth put by them for diversion of the water. The two witnesses also appear to me quite honest and making statements before the court with clean and clear heart without any malicious as they do not also appear having any ill-will towards any of the appellants. PWs. 2 and 3 were cross-examined to challenge their presence on the place of occurrence. The two witnesses also appear to me quite honest and making statements before the court with clean and clear heart without any malicious as they do not also appear having any ill-will towards any of the appellants. PWs. 2 and 3 were cross-examined to challenge their presence on the place of occurrence. They were very clearly and honestly speaking that their fields were far away from the place where the real occurrence of assaulting the deceased and the injured with lathi had taken place but they had gone to the place of occurrence only to monitor the flow of water into their respective plots and they were about 100 steps away from the field of the informant and deceased and as soon as they heard the remonstration and halla of the appellants, they rushed to save the informant and the deceased. Both the witnesses have, in their depositions, also stated that prior to the last part of occurrence, initial incident of exchange of hot words and grappling between PW-1 and the deceased appellant Jokhai ahd taken place and they had initially intervened into that incident of grappling to separate the two persons. In the above context we had a glimpse of paragraphs 13 and 25 to 38 of PW-2 and paragraphs 16 and onwards of PW.3. 17. Thus, what I find from perusal of evidence of Pws. 1, 2 and 3 is that they were the most dis-interested and independent witnesses who did not have any motive of telling a lie for implicating innocent persons. Infact, they were inspiring my confidence and while I was going through the lines of their respective evidences, I always had a firm view coming into my mind that they were honest persons who had no other business than to inform the court about the real state of facts as had occurred on that day, which they had seen or perceived personally. 18. The evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 clearly indicate that the deceased-appellant Jokhai had remonstrated and thereafter the first blow was given by appellant Chaitu as a result of which the deceased fell down, whereafter appellant Kinka ( also dead) mounted over his chest and assaulted him with legs and fists, while simultaneously the other accused persons kept dealing blows with lathi. I have extracted the evidence of PW-5 Dr. I have extracted the evidence of PW-5 Dr. V.J. Khanna and his evidence clearly indicated that there were corresponding injuries present on the chest and other parts of the dead body of deceased. The first blow dealt by appellant Chaitu appears corresponding to injury no. 1 found by PW-5 on head of the deceased. The informant stated that after they had assaulted the deceased, all the appellants had turned towards him and had given quite some number of blows to him. He had stated in paragraph 61 as to how he was assaulted by the appellants and in that connection he had stated that some of the appellants gave one lathi blow while the other two gave blows also. The evidence of PW 1 in paragraph 61 on the manner of assault given to him by the accused persons completely corresponds to the evidence of PW-4 Dr. Mohd. Tauhid. Thus lending support and corroboration to the versions given by PW-1 and other witnesses. The resume of evidence does not leave any room to doubt that the manner of occurrence was improbable and further that the manner of occurrence as stated by the prosecution was exaggerated and that infact, no occurrence had taken place. I am confirmed in holding the view that the manner of occurrence which was put forth by the prosecution initially in the FIR appears magnified clearly in all its details by the evidence of the prosecution and that was fully acceptable. 19. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellant acted in exercise of right of their private defence as prosecution had failed to explain the injuries found on the appellant Jokhai. While considering the evidence of the witnesses and the story of the prosecution which they were supporting, one has also to keep in mind that the occurrence was contended by two incidents. The first incident was of scuffle and grappling between PW-1 and the deceased appellant Jokhai. I am not going into the genesis of that incident because there is no dispute in it after defence was giving a suggestion in paragraph 74 to PW-5 that it had arisen for flowing canal water either by PW-1 or the deceased appellant Jokhai into their respective fields. I am not going into the genesis of that incident because there is no dispute in it after defence was giving a suggestion in paragraph 74 to PW-5 that it had arisen for flowing canal water either by PW-1 or the deceased appellant Jokhai into their respective fields. What is material for the present consideration is the PW-1 has very clearly stated in his written report and had reiterated in detail the same incident and has admitted that there was some exchange of abuses, which turned into a scuffle and, finally, into grappling between PW-1 and the deceased appellant Jokhai. PW-1 candidly admitted that during that grappling the deceased appellant Jokhai had probably been put by him down on the ridge of the field of one Ram Narayan and on that account two injuries were caused to him - one on his head and the other in his back. While grappling between the two was going on, PWs. 2 and 3 intervened and separated them. This is the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 3 also. The deceased appellant Jokhai thereafter returned to his house which was not far away from the field and re-appeared on the place of occurrence in 15-20 minutes of his departure with all other appellants who all were armed with lathi, wherafter the final incident of assaulting the deceased and the informant had taken place. Thus what appears from the above facts is that the injuries which were received by the deceased appellant Jokhai was, firstly, not really and directly inflicted by any of the witnesses of the prosecution. It was incidentally caused to the deceased appellant Jokhai on account of having entered into some scuffle and grappling with PW-1. 20. The obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the accused was fist identified by the Supreme Court in Mohar Rai vs. State of Bihar, reported in Air 1968 SC 1281 and that was subsequently elucidated further by the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh vs. Stte of Bihar ( 1976) 4 SCC 394and finally also in Vijayee Singh vs. State of U.P. ( 1990) 3 SCC 190and through so many subsequent decisions including Anil Kumar vs. State of U.P., reported in 2005 SCC ( Crl.) 178. 21. 21. It was held that if it was found from the evidence of the prosecution that the accused had received injuries in course of the same incident or in the same transaction, then there was a need for the prosecution to satisfactory explain as to how accused persons happened to have those injuries. In Lakshmi Singh ( Supra) it was held by the Supreme Court that non-examination of the injuries found on the person of the accused may be lead to an inferences as if the prosecution witnesses were making false statements on some most material parts of the prosecution case and, further, that the accused persons may have acted in exercise of their right of private defence. But as in the case of Vijayee Singh ( supra), so also it was raised in the case of James Martin v. State of Kerala, ( 2004) 2 SCC 203 , it was laid down that if the injuries sustained by the accused were minor and superficial and also, where whether the evidence is clear and cogent coming from the witnesses who were so disinterested and independent that it was far out-weighing the fact of omission on the part of the prosecution, then the prosecution did not owe any obligation to explain the injuries found no the person of the accused. But, most of all, it was necessary for the defence to show either from cross examination of the witnesses or from some admitted documents that the accused persons had sustained the injuries during the course of the same incident and about the same time. If it was so that the accused might have suffered injuries outside the occurrence which was the main occurrence, then in that case there was no obligation for the prosecution to explain the injuries found on the person of the accused. 22. If it was so that the accused might have suffered injuries outside the occurrence which was the main occurrence, then in that case there was no obligation for the prosecution to explain the injuries found on the person of the accused. 22. Going by the above principle, what I find is - and that position is admitted by both the sides- that there was initially an altercation which turned into a scuffle and finally into a grappling between PW-1 and the deceased appellant Jokhai in which course, I have already noted, Jokhai was put down on the ridge of the field and it has come in the cross examination of PW-1 in paragraph 54 which is at page 44 of the paper book that the place where the deceased -appellant Jokhai had fallen down during the course of grappling, some stone pieces lying as a result of which he received injuries. Thus, what appears from the evidence of the witnesses is that, firstly, the incident had preceded the main incident of dealing blows by the appellants with lathi to PW-1 and the deceased and the injuries which were received by the deceased appellant Jokhai was not intentionally given by any of the witnesses. I have used the word 'intentionally', because in my considered view the defence should show by probability that the accused had received injuries at the hands of the prosecution witnesses and that the witnesses had the requisite intention while assaulting the accused, giving rise to a situation of reasonably apprehending danger to the life of the accused or grievous hurt to be inflicted to any of them. If this circumstance is not appearing from the prosecution evidence, then in my considered view, even in a case in which the defence could show that the injuries had been received in the course of same transaction and during the same incident and further that the injury was serious in nature, may not require being explained by the prosecution. 23. In the backdrop of the facts of the present case, the part of the incident in which the deceased appellant Jokhai had received injuries need not be explained by the prosecution. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show as to what was the injury which was received by the deceased appellant Jokhai. 23. In the backdrop of the facts of the present case, the part of the incident in which the deceased appellant Jokhai had received injuries need not be explained by the prosecution. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show as to what was the injury which was received by the deceased appellant Jokhai. DW-1 who was the compounder in the Jail Hospital, Mirzapur has not stated as to what was the injuries and has also not stated that he had himself had the occasion of examining these injuries. Undisputedly, the injuries found on the person of the deceased appellant Jokhai was examined and recorded by some doctor who was posted in the said jail, but that doctor had not been examined. As such this circumstance in consonance with other circums-tance which I just recorded, was not making it imperative for the prosecution to explain the injuries which might have been found on the deceased appellant Jokhai. 24. After having answered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants on non-explanation of the injuries, I think that there was nothing to be said further on his submission that the accused persons were acting in exercise of their right of private defence. I have already noted in the preceding paragraphs that unless the defence had succeeded in showing by the preponderance of probability which may appear from the cross examination of the witnesses or from facts introduced through it that there was a reasonable apprehension arising in the mind of the accused that he may be killed or in the alternative any grievous injury could be caused to him as is required by sections 97 to 99 with limitation laid down by section 103, the appellants could not have any right to exercise in their defence, much less a right by which they could justify the killing of the deceased in the present case. They did not have any apprehension in their mind. It could be explained from the consideration of evidence after first incident of scuffle and grappling between PW-1 and one of the appellants. 25. The evidence shows that the appellant Jokhai had gone back to his house empty handed and appeared on the scene of occurrence with the remaining appellants, all armed with lathi and just after their arrival, they started assaulting the deceased and the informant. I have already noted the injuries found by PWs. 25. The evidence shows that the appellant Jokhai had gone back to his house empty handed and appeared on the scene of occurrence with the remaining appellants, all armed with lathi and just after their arrival, they started assaulting the deceased and the informant. I have already noted the injuries found by PWs. 4 and 5 on the PW-1 and the deceased. The facts of the case indicated that after the appellant Chaitu had given the first blow on the head of the deceased, one of the appellants Kinka mounted over his chest and assaulted him with legs and fists. Injuries were there on chest . Other appellants assaulted the deceased with lathi and as many as 7 injuries were recorded by PW-5 on hands, legs and also on head in addition to injury no. 1. Not only that PW-6 had about 8 injuries which might be simple, but definitely indicated as to how mercilessly the accused persons were administering the blows. The blows, especially, given to the deceased were more devastating which is exhibited by length and width of the injuries. The above facts clearly indicated that the accused persons did not have any apprehension rather they were dealing the blows one sidedly upon the deceased and the informant and by the merciless beating given by them to the deceased, he succumbed to the injuries which definitely brought the case fully covered under section 302 I.P.C. This probably taken case of the submission of the learned counsel for the accused appellants that the case may fall within the purview of section 304 I.P.C. 26. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellants was castigating the prosecution for not being prompt in lodging the report. After going through the evidence of the witnesses what appeared to me was that they were simple souls who had never had the opportunity of facing such drastic situation in their lives. They appear attempting to live with the reality and were probably frightened also in that particular night in which the deceased had been assaulted by the accused persons to be rendered unconscious. The three witnesses have stated that they waited for the dawn and when it was visible, they started by carrying the deceased on a carriage created by a cot which was carried by PWs. The three witnesses have stated that they waited for the dawn and when it was visible, they started by carrying the deceased on a carriage created by a cot which was carried by PWs. 2, 3 and others and, lastly, when they were about to reach the police station, the deceased died. The explanation which was given by them appear quite genuine to me and there was no such purpose for them to delay the report because PWs. 2 and 3 had categorically stated that they had already narrated about the incident to the villagers in the same night when they had brought the injured Rajmani to the house. If they had have any ill-will towards the appellants or, had any motive, recorded or admitted, then in that case the court could have viewed the lodging of the report with some alarm but in the background of innocence and unblemished relationship between the parties, this court does not find it a deliberate attempt on the part of the prosecution so as to buying out time to consult or ponder over the situation for framing facts. 27. In the result I find that the judgment passed by the learned trial judge was the only result the only result which could have come out on consideration of the evidence available to it on the record. The appellants were rightly convicted for the offences and appropriately sentenced. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. The surviving appellants are on bail. Their bonds are hereby cancelled. They shall surrender to the custody of the court below to serve out the sentence passed upon them by the trial court.