JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned APP for the State. 2. Appellant, Ram Kripal Rai has been convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 148, 323, 307, and 436 of the IPC and has been directed to undergo RI for two years, SI for six months, RI for five years respectively. Appellant, Ram Pravesh @ Pravesh Rai under Section 148, 323 and 307 IPC and has been directed to undergo RI for two years, SI for six months, RI for five years respectively while remaining appellants, Bechan Rai @ Ram Bahadur Rai, Kari Rai, Kamesh Rai @ Kamlesh Rai, Rajendra Rai, Kumar Rai @ Ram Kumar Rai, Mahendra Rai have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 147, 323, 307/149 IPC and they each have been directed to undergo SI for six months, RI for five years respectively with a direction to run the sentences concurrently vide judgment of conviction dated 29.08.2002, sentence dated 31.08.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC No. 4), Sitamarhi in connection with Sessions Trial No. 124 of 1991/119/2002, hence this appeal. 3. Nagendra Rai (PW-4) recorded his Fard-e-beyan (Ext-1) on 05.10.90 at 1:00 p.m. alleging inter alia that on the same day at about 7:30 a.m., Bechan Rai was embedding peg in his land as well as Kari Rai and Bechan Rai were also engaged in cleaning the earth which was protested by his father and on account thereof, Kripali Rai, Kamesh Rai, Ram Pravesh Rai, Rajendra Rai, Kumar Rai, Mahendra Rai, all armed with Lathi, Bhala and Garasa came and surrounded him as well as his father and began to assault. They have also snatched away his wrist watch. Kripali Rai set ablazed the hut lying at Kharihan. Pravesh Rai gave stroke over forehead of his father with Garasa on account of which his father fell down. Then thereafter, all of them assaulted him as well as his father with Lathi. Kishori Rai (PW-1), Yogendra Rai (PW-2), Ram Sogarath Rai (PW-3) along with others have been cited as witnesses. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid Fard-e-beyan, Sursand P.S. Case No. 95/90 was registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 379 and 436 of the IPC followed with investigation as well as submission of charge-sheet whereupon the trial commenced after committal and ultimately met with present sprue, the subject matter of the instant appeal. 5. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid Fard-e-beyan, Sursand P.S. Case No. 95/90 was registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 379 and 436 of the IPC followed with investigation as well as submission of charge-sheet whereupon the trial commenced after committal and ultimately met with present sprue, the subject matter of the instant appeal. 5. The defence case as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial of occurrence. Furthermore, there happens to be specific defence that while accused, Bechan Rai @ Ram Bahadur Rai was embedding peg in his own side, the prosecution party pounced upon them and brutally assaulted him along with others for which on the Fard-e-beyan of appellant/accused, Bechan Rai @ Ram Bahadur Rai Sursan P.S. Case no. 96/90 was registered. 6. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case had examined altogether six PWs out of whom PW-1 is Kishori Rai, PW-2 is Yogendra Rai, PW-3 is Ram Sogarath Rai, PW-4 is Nagendra Rai, PW-5 is Kumar Ekle (I.O.), and PW-6 is Dr. Kamlesh Thakur as well as had also exhibited Ext-1- Fard-e-beyan , Ext-2-injury report prepared by police, Ext-3- Formal FIR , Ext-4-injury report of Ram Sogarath Rai, Ext-4/1, injury report of Nagendra Rai. 7. Though DW has not been examined, even then the defence had exhibited Ext-A- Fard-e-beyan of Sursand P.S. Case No. 96/90, Ext-B- FIR of Sursand P.S. Case No. 96/90. 8. From the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution, it is apparent that both the parties are agnates. It is also evident from the evidence of injured Ram Sogarath (PW-3) para-5, that the place of occurrence bears Khesra No. 2355 having total area of 53 decimal which has been recorded in the name of prosecution party as well as father of accused/appellant along with the fact that it has been allotted in his share whereupon, he along with his brother are in possession. However, during cross-examination at para-9, he failed to disclose the actual time of partition but accepted that the cattle shed of accused also lies over plot no. 2355. He had further disclosed that his cattle shed lies on southern western corner of the plot while his brother’s cattle shed lies south to his cattle shed. In para-10, he had stated that cattle shed of accused lies north east to his cattle shed. 2355. He had further disclosed that his cattle shed lies on southern western corner of the plot while his brother’s cattle shed lies south to his cattle shed. In para-10, he had stated that cattle shed of accused lies north east to his cattle shed. He further stated in para-13 that there happens to be ridge in between and further had denied suggestion that there was no ridge in between. 9. PW-4 in para-6 had also admitted that the cattle shed of accused also stands on the same plot over eastern side of his Bathan lying north to south. There happens to be ridge in between. Brick has been affixed. His land lies at higher level than the land of accused. 10. PW-5 is the I.O. who had detailed the place of occurrence under para-6 of his evidence whereunder he had disclosed that place of occurrence happens to be survey plot no. 2355, area 53 decimal. He had found Bathan of informant at the northern side and had further found the land having been dug up. He had also found sign of embedding of peg. He had also found Naad lying south to the place where land was dug and south east to the aforesaid Naad, a tiled roof house having north front belonging to informant in burnt condition wherein a bullock-cart was also burnt. He had also found blood stain 10 feet north to that place. During cross-examination at para-9, he had stated that he had not mentioned the fact whether the land was in same level or having some sort of difference. He also disclosed that he had not found ridge in between. 11. Consequent thereupon, presence of accused over survey plot no. 2355 happens to be admitted one and in likewise manner, the objective finding of the Investigating Officer contradicts the assertion of the prosecution witnesses with regard to geography of the land having been in their possession. The Investigating Officer also contradicted the assertion of the prosecution party, more particularly, PWs-3 and 4. In para-9, PW-3 had clearly stated that his cattle shed lies on southern western flank over the aforesaid plot, the Investigating Officer had incorporated under para-6 that cattle shed of informant was found over northern side of aforesaid plot. The Investigating Officer also contradicted the assertion of the prosecution party, more particularly, PWs-3 and 4. In para-9, PW-3 had clearly stated that his cattle shed lies on southern western flank over the aforesaid plot, the Investigating Officer had incorporated under para-6 that cattle shed of informant was found over northern side of aforesaid plot. Therefore, exclusive possession of prosecution to an area as claimed over the aforesaid plot is also found suffering from some sort of confusing state of affairs and in the likewise manner the hut which has been alleged to have been burnt. 12. Although none of the prosecution witnesses had admitted that they had seen the accused persons also admitted in the hospital on the relevant date and time, however, PW-4 in his cross-examination at para-16 had disclosed that Bechan Ram had not come to hospital on the same day for treatment. He had not seen Bechan Ram in the hospital. Again he disclosed that he had seen Bechan Ram in the midst of way to hospital at about 7:00 p.m.. He had not seen injuries over the person of Bechan, Kamlesh and Pravesh. His testimony is found totally demolished from the evidence of I.O. as till then all the accused persons were already arrested at hospital itself, and the I.O. at the time of arrest found multiple injuries over persons of apprehended accused. 13. PW-5, the Investigating Officer in his examination-in-chief at para-4 had deposed that he had apprehended accused Bechan, Kari, Kamesh, Pravesh in the hospital itself and then carried them to PS. During cross-examination at para-14, he had deposed that on the same day at about 1.30 p.m., he had recorded Fard-e-beyan of injured, Ram Bahadur Rai in the hospital itself and on account thereof, he had registered Sursand P.S. Case No. 96/90 and accordingly, had exhibited Ext-A & B. In para-15, he had further stated that all the accused persons, whom he arrested, were in injured condition and were present in the hospital. He had inspected the injured and then had issued respective injury report for their examination by the doctor. On account thereof, it has become abundantly clear that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, accused persons had also sustained injuries. He had inspected the injured and then had issued respective injury report for their examination by the doctor. On account thereof, it has become abundantly clear that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, accused persons had also sustained injuries. On perusal of Ext-A, it is apparent that dispute arose on account of sinking of peg whereunder they were assaulted by the prosecution party, by various means including by sharp cutting weapon. In the aforesaid background as well as considering the conclusiveness of the principle that the injuries having sustained by the accused/appellant is not going to cast any sort of cloud over the prosecution case, in case, is found proved by consistent reliable evidence as well as the prosecution is not obliged to explain the injuries in all events, but the same varies according to factual aspect where, prima facie, the evidence is coming out from prosecution side itself on this very score. Its repercussion will be explained at an appropriate place of judgment. 14. Adverting to ocular evidence, PW-1 is Kishori Rai, an FIR named witness who had stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, he heard sound of uproar coming towards house of Ram Sogarath Rai whereupon, he had gone and seen Kari Rai, Bechan Rai engaged in sinking peg in the land of Ram Sogarath Rai which was resisted by Ram Sogarath Rai. Kari and Bechan abused him and then thereafter they had gone to their house. After some time, Kari, Ramkripal, Ram Pravesh, Kamlesh, Bechan, Mahendar, Rajendra, Ram Kumar came with Lathi, Bhala, Garasa. At that very time, Ram Kripal was armed with Bhala, Ram Pravesh was armed with Garasa and rests were armed with Lathi. On an order of Ram Kripal, firstly, Ram Kripal Rai inflicted Bhala blow on the head of Ram Sogarath Rai followed by Garasad blow by Ram Pravesh Rai on the head. Ram Sogarath Rai fell down and then other assaulted him with Lathi. Nagendra came in rescue who was assaulted by Bechan by Lathi. Ram Pravesh Rai snatched his wrist watch. Ram Kripal lit fire in the residential house of Ram Sogarath Rai and on account thereof, all his belongings kept inside were burnt. Ram Sogarath Rai was shifted to hospital. He had further stated that the land happens to be in possession of Ram Sogarath Rai. Ram Pravesh Rai snatched his wrist watch. Ram Kripal lit fire in the residential house of Ram Sogarath Rai and on account thereof, all his belongings kept inside were burnt. Ram Sogarath Rai was shifted to hospital. He had further stated that the land happens to be in possession of Ram Sogarath Rai. During cross-examination, he had stated that informant as well as accused happens to be his maternal brother. He had further stated that his house does not lie over the land of Ram Sogarath Rai. In para-9 he had admitted that both the parties are agnates. They have got no dispute amongst themselves save and except the land in question. He had denied his knowledge regarding counter case. He had further disclosed the boundary of the disputed land as North-pond, South- Ram Sogarath Rai, East-Rajendra Rai and road. He had further admitted that half portion belongs to accused while half portion belongs to informant. He had further admitted that house of both the parties and cattle shed are standing on the aforesaid land. In para-14, he had further stated that Ram Sogarath Rai was cordoned from all sides and then he was assaulted. Again contradicted in para-15 that Ram Sogarath Rai was standing at eastern side while appellants were standing at western side. Bhala blow was given from the distance of 3-4 hands. In para-16, he had further disclosed that Ram Sogarath Rai had sustained Garasa blow while he was standing. In para-20, he had further stated that at the time of litting fire 15-20 persons were present. Accused persons remained there for some time and then had gone. In para-21, he had denied presence of injuries over the person of accused. In para-22 there happens to be material contradiction. 15. PW-2 is Yogendra Rai who is a resident of different village who had stated that he had come to P.O. village to purchase she-buffalo and in this connection, he had gone to Darwaza of Chandeshwar, Ram Sogarath Rai where he had seen Kari and Bechan engaged in sinking pegs in the land of Ram Sogarath Rai which was protested by Ram Sogarath Rai. Then thereafter, Kari and Bechan had gone to their house and after some time, Kari Rai, Ram Kripal Rai, Bechan along with others whom he had not identified, came armed with Lathi, Bhala and Garasa. Then thereafter, Kari and Bechan had gone to their house and after some time, Kari Rai, Ram Kripal Rai, Bechan along with others whom he had not identified, came armed with Lathi, Bhala and Garasa. Kari Rai was armed with Bhala while Ram Pravesh was armed with Garasa. Rest were armed with Lathi. Kari Rai had given Bhala blow while Ram Pravesh had given Garasa blow. Rest assaulted Ram Sogarath Rai with Lathi. When Nagendra came, he was assaulted by Lathi. After assault Ram Kripal lit fire in the house of informant on account thereof all the articles turned into ashes. Then thereafter, he was declared hostile by the prosecution to the extent of naming as well as identification of remaining accused. During cross-examination at para-8, he had shown the boundary of P.O. North, Mahendra Rai, South- Ram Sogarath Rai, Chandeshwar, East- Ram Kripal (accused) West-Road. In para-9, he had further disclosed that when he reached at the place of occurrence there were five persons only. In para-10, he had further disclosed that he knew accused, Bechan. He had further stated that the place of occurrence where occurrence took place belongs to Bechan Rai. In para-11, he had further stated that six persons came at the place of occurrence after his arrival and then occurrence took place. He had further disclosed at para 12 that Ram Sogarath Rai was assaulted at the northern corner of land. He had further stated in para-13 that Kishori Rai, Dinesh Rai and Nagendra Rai arrived after infliction of Garasa blow by Ram Pravesh. Till then, Ram Sogarath Rai became unconscious. In para-14, he had further stated that Ram Kripal had lit fire after occurrence. He had further disclosed the boundary of the house wherein fire was lit as North- house of Ram Kripal, South-Chandeshwar, East-Yogendra Rai, West- house of Ram Sogarath Rai. 16. PW-3 is injured, Ram Sogarath Rai. He had stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence while he was at his Bathan, Bechan was sinking peg at his land while Kari was scrapping with spade. When he protested, Bechan and Kari had gone to their house. After some time, Ram Kripal, Ram Pravesh, Kamlesh, Ram Kumar, Mahendra, Kari, Bechan, Rajendra came duly armed. Ram Kripal was carrying Bhala, Ram Pravesh was carrying Garasa and rests were armed with Lathi. When he protested, Bechan and Kari had gone to their house. After some time, Ram Kripal, Ram Pravesh, Kamlesh, Ram Kumar, Mahendra, Kari, Bechan, Rajendra came duly armed. Ram Kripal was carrying Bhala, Ram Pravesh was carrying Garasa and rests were armed with Lathi. Ram Kripal gave Bhala blow while Ram Pravesh gave Garasa blow. Rest assaulted with Lathi. When his son Nagendra came, he was also assaulted with Lathi. His wrist watch was also snatched away. Ram Kripal lit fire in his house. He became unconscious and then thereafter was taken to hospital where he regained sense. During cross-examination at para-13, he had stated that at first occasion there were only three persons, two accused and one himself. In para-14, he had stated that Bechan and Kari have gone to their respective house lying north at a distance of 25-30 Lagga. In para-15, he had further stated that they came after 10-15 minutes and then thereafter began to assault. At that very moment, Kishori, Dinesh and Yogendra were present. In para-16, he had stated that he had sustained single Bhala blow. In para-17, he had further stated that he sustained Garasa blow. In para-18, he had further stated that when Nagendar came to rescue him, he was conscious and standing. He further stated that before arrival of Nagendra other had come in his rescue. Then Nagendra was assaulted and his wrist watch was also snatched. In para-19 he stated that at the time of setting fire he was lying on the earth. At that very moment, 13-14 persons were present. He had further stated that as he was unconscious, therefore, he is unable to say as to how much time was consumed in getting the house burnt. In para-20 he had denied the suggestion of the defence that they were aggressors and had assaulted the accused persons. He had also shown ignorance with regard to institution of counter case. Para-23 happens to be contradiction. 17. PW-4 is the informant who had stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, he was at his Khalihan as well as Bathan. Bechan and Kari began to sink peg in his land over which his father resisted. Then thereafter, they both had gone. Para-23 happens to be contradiction. 17. PW-4 is the informant who had stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, he was at his Khalihan as well as Bathan. Bechan and Kari began to sink peg in his land over which his father resisted. Then thereafter, they both had gone. Subsequently thereof, Ram Kripal, Kamlesh, Ram Pravesh, Rajendra, Ram Kumar, Bechan, Kari and Mahendra came at his Bathan out of whom Ram Kripal was armed with Bhala and Ram Pravesh had Garasa and rest were armed with Lathi. Ram Kripal gave Bhala blow on his father while Ram Pravesh had inflicted Garasa blow. Rest had also assaulted with Lathi. He intervened and during course thereof, he was assaulted with lathi. His wrist watch was also snatched. Ram Kripal set his house on fire. His father became unconscious and on account thereof, he was lifted to hospital. Police came and took his statement. He had further stated that the land in question belongs to him. Accused have got no concerned. In para-8 of his cross-examination, he had stated that he was present there since before the occurrence. He had further stated that at the time of fixing peg, only four persons were present. In para-9, he had further stated that all the accused persons came at an interval of five minutes. He had further stated that the house of accused persons lies 25-30 lagga from the P.O. land. In para-10, he had further stated that accused persons came running from their house raising voice. He had further stated that when accused persons came at the place of occurrence, none was present. No sooner than the arrival of accused persons, Ram Kripal gave Bhala blow followed with Garasa blow. In para-13, he had further stated that after snatching his wrist watch, Ram Kripal set his house ablazed. At that very moment, 50-60 persons have assembled there but none of them tried to extinguish the fire. Thereafter, he took his father to hospital. Para-20 is material contradiction. 18. PW-5 is the I.O.. Major portion of his evidence has already been discussed in foregoing paragraph. In para-13, he had further stated that there happened to be no seizure list. 19. PW-6 is Dr. Thereafter, he took his father to hospital. Para-20 is material contradiction. 18. PW-5 is the I.O.. Major portion of his evidence has already been discussed in foregoing paragraph. In para-13, he had further stated that there happened to be no seizure list. 19. PW-6 is Dr. Kameshwar Thakur who had examined injured, Ram Sogarath Rai on 05.10.1990 at about 11:00 a.m. and found following injuries over his person:- (i) one incised wound 2” x 1” x ¼” on the occipital region of the head. (ii) one incised wound 2” x 1”x ¼” on the middle of the forehead. (iii) Longitudinal swelling 3” x 1” x ½” on the upper part of left side of the chest. (iv) One swelling 2” x 2” x ¼” on the middle of thigh. (v) One swelling 1’ x 1” x 1” on the front of left forearm. In the opinion of doctor injury nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were simple in nature. Injury no.2 was caused by sharp pointed weapon while 3, 4 and 5 were caused by hard blunt substance. Injury No.1 was opined as grievous cause by sharp cutting weapon on account of cutting of blood vessel. 20. He had also examined Nagendra Rai on the same day at about 11:30 and found following injuries over his person:- (i) Tear wound 2” x ½” x ¼” on the head. (ii) One small swelling 1” x ½” x ¼” on the front and middle of forearm. (iii) One swelling 1’ x ½” ½” on the back of the chest. All the injuries were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. 21. After analyzing evidence of the witnesses, it is apparent that prosecution had tried to develop the story right from initial stage. As per Fard-e-beyan (Ext-1) only Bechan Rai and Kari Rai were present but it has not been disclosed that after being scolded at the end of PW-3, they both had gone to their house and then returned back with other co-accused. As per Fard-e-beyan (Ext-1) only Bechan Rai and Kari Rai were present but it has not been disclosed that after being scolded at the end of PW-3, they both had gone to their house and then returned back with other co-accused. In likewise manner, although there happens to be denial at the end of all the ocular witnesses, however, from the evidence of PW-5, I.O., it is abundantly clear that some of the appellants who were in injured condition as well as were present in the hospital while the informant was also there, were also apprehended, injury reports were issued to them and got them examined by the doctor. Though there happens to be consistency amongst evidence of the PWs over manner of assault having been committed at the hands of accused/appellant whereunder PW-3, Ram Sogarath Rai sustained injuries as well as PW-4, Nagendra Rai but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, when there happens to be joint presence of both the parties over the land under dispute and further, having contradictory statement of prosecution witnesses at least PW-3 and PW-4 inconsonance with the objective finding of the I.O., over the exact location, area of possession by the respective parties. Evidence of PW-2 had gone far away disclosing that the occurrence took place over the land of Bechan Rai, one of the accused, then in that event, conduct of prosecution became completely embrangled. The contradictory statement of the witnesses on this very score coupled with showing ignorance about the injuries over accused coupled with presence of counter case which the PW-5 had already admitted along with Ext-A, B, FIR of counter case of Sursand P.S. Case No. 96/90, make the situation worsen and inspire that the prosecution party had tried to suppress the real mode of genesis as well as manner of occurrence. Having been so, there appears to be dent in the prosecution version and consequent thereupon, it looks unsafe to rely upon their testimony. In likewise manner, the exact location of the house wherein fire was lit allegedly at the end of Ram Kripal has also become under controversy on account of fluctuating description of the P.O. land. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court considered the issue in Mano Dutt & Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2012) 4 SCC 79 wherein it has been held as follows:- “38. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court considered the issue in Mano Dutt & Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2012) 4 SCC 79 wherein it has been held as follows:- “38. The question, raised before this Court for its consideration, is with respect to the effect of non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused persons. In this regard, this Court has taken a consistent view that the normal rule is that whenever the accused sustains injury in the same occurrence in which the complainant suffered the injury, the prosecution should explain the injury upon the accused. But, it is not a rule without exception that if the prosecution fails to give explanation, the prosecution case must fail. 39. Before the non-explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused, by the prosecution witnesses, may be held to affect the prosecution case, the Court has to be satisfied of the existence of two conditions: (i) that the injuries on the person of the accused were also of a serious nature; and (ii) that such injuries must have been caused at the time of the occurrence in question. 40. Where the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy; and where the court can distinguish the truth from falsehood, the mere fact that the injuries on the person of the accused are not explained by the prosecution cannot, by itself, be the sole basis to reject the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and consequently, the whole case of the prosecution. Reference in this regard can be made to Rajender Singh v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 298 , Ram Sunder Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 7 SCC 365 and Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P., (1990) 3 SCC 190 : ( AIR 1990 SC 1459 ).” In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the High Court has not considered the issue of non-explanation of injuries on the person of accused in correct perspective. 23. Appellants have not brought injury report on record but presence of injury over their persons is above board, on account of admission of PW-5 which has to be consolidated with the deformity in the prosecution case as the prosecution case, apart from being failed to prove its exclusive possession over the P.O. land, also tried to hide the event suffered by accused persons through admitted title and possession of accused over P.O.. 24. It is true that prosecution is not bound to explain the injuries found over the accused, but after going through the evidence it transpires that prosecution’s conduct is not fair, then in such circumstances, the lapses so usually foreclose bellow of prosecution. 25. From the judgment impugned, it is evident that learned trial court did not consider the relevant part duly exposed from the prosecution version itself and on account thereof, could not found based upon the material available on the record. It is true that from the evidence of PW-6, the Doctor, the injuries sustained by PWs 3 and 4 are evident but as the prosecution, reason best known to him, at least unsuccessfully tried to suppress the genesis, manner of occurrence as well as also could not succeed in proving their exclusive possession over the area where occurrence is alleged to have taken place rather from the evidence of PW-2, para-10, it is apparent that occurrence took place over the land having in possession of accused, Bechan Rai. 26. From the evidence, it is apparent that accused have not taken plea of right of private defence but have had suggested to the PW-3, PW-4 that they were aggressors. 27. How a plea of right of private defence is to be perceived by the court, even in case where it has not been placed in specific term, the same has been explained and the principle have been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Manoj Kumar reported in (2014) 5 SCC 744 in the following terms:- 13.1. Munshi Ram v. Delhi Admn. ( AIR 1968 SC 702 ) wherein it has been laid that even if an accused does not take the plea of private defence, it is open to the court to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record and burden to establish such a plea is on the accused and that burden can be discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of material on record. 13.2 In Salim Zia v. State of U.P. ( (1979) 2 SCC 648 ) the observation made by this Court to the effect that it is true that the burden on an accused person to establish the plea of self-defence is not as onerous as the one which lies on the prosecution and that while the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused need not establish the plea to the hilt and may discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance of probabilities either by laying basis for that plea in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or by adducing defence evidence. 13.3. Similarly, in Mohd. Ramzani v. State of Delhi (1980 supp SCC 215), it has been held that: (SCC p. 221, para 19) “19…… It is trite that the onus which rests on an accused person under Section 105 of the Evidence Act to establish his plea of private defence is not as onerous as the unshifting burden which lies on the prosecution to establish every ingredient of the offence with which the accused is charged, beyond reasonable doubt.” 14. In the case at hand, the plea of right of private defence arises on the base of materials on record. As far as onus is concerned, we find that there is ocular and documentary evidence to sustain the concept of preponderance of probabilities. It cannot be said that there is no material on record or scanty material to discard the plea. Thus, the aforesaid submissions being unacceptable, are hereby repelled. 23. Consequent thereupon, the judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. Appeal is allowed. Since all the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.