JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ramesh Sinha, J.—This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.9.1981 passed by IInd Additional Session Judge, Bulandshahar in Session Trial No. 530 of 1980 convicting the appellants under Sections 147, 307, 149 and 354/149 I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, five years rigorous imprisonment and 1 and 1/2 years respectively which was ordered to be run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 18.3.1977 at about 2 p.m. Smt. Chandrawati P.W.1 alongwith her brothers Rambhool and Ghanshyam was getting the crop of her field stored after being harvested and when she reached near the culvert of canal distributory with the bundles of the harvested crop, she was stopped by the three accused alongwith Ramesh, Radhey, Sardar, Basdeo of her village and Ram Saran of village Pratappur, police station Javan, District Aligarh, who were armed with lathis, spears and Sankhi (a sharp pointed fork like instrument). They attacked on her, when her brothers came to her rescue, they too were beaten by lathi, spear and ‘Daranti’ (a type of sickle for harvesting crop). Thereafter, she was dragged into a field where she was stripped off her Dhoti and the bottom of a lathi was thrust into her vagina. She was also relieved of her ear ring. When her brother again came to her rescue, they were again beaten very badly. The accused had declared their intention to kill them. They were saved by Rajbir Singh, Lakhmi Singh and Hari Singh besides others on seeking whom, the accused effected their retreat. 3. A chick report No. 40 was drawn up by Head Constable Shishpal Singh, who registered the case as Crime No. 41A of 1977. The investigation of case was done by P.W.4-I.O. K.P. Singh. Thereafter all the three victims were medically examined at P.H.C. Pahasu, by Dr. V.S. Malik (P.W.3), who noted two lacerated wounds, a punctured wound, five contusions and an abrasion on the person of Smt. Chandrawati, three punctured wounds and four lacerated wounds and a contusion on the person of Rambhool. A lacerated wound, four contusions and an abrasion on the person of Ghanshyam. The medical examination was conducted between 11:35 and 12:45 a.m. The X-ray of Ghanshyam revealed fracture of ulna bone of the right fore-arm and that of Smt. Chandrawati fracture of the base of proximal phalnx of the right little finger. A lacerated wound, four contusions and an abrasion on the person of Ghanshyam. The medical examination was conducted between 11:35 and 12:45 a.m. The X-ray of Ghanshyam revealed fracture of ulna bone of the right fore-arm and that of Smt. Chandrawati fracture of the base of proximal phalnx of the right little finger. The internal examination of Smt. Chandrawati which was conducted by Dr. S.K. Bhatnagar (P.W.6) on 19.3.1977, revealed bleeding from the vagina having an abrasion in an area of 2 and ¼ circumference. After completion of investigation, out of the eight accused persons nominated in the F.I.R. only three accused persons, were sent up for trial. 4. In support of the charges, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Smt. Chandrawati, the complainant, P.W.2 Rambhool, the other victim, P.W.3 Dr. V.V.S. Malik, P.W.4 K.P. Singh, the investigating officer, P.W.5 Dr. H.U.K. Zuberi, the Radiologist, who had taken the X-ray of the victims, and P.W.6 lady Dr. S.K. Bhatnagar, who had conducted the internal examination of Smt. Chandrawati. 5. The three accused were charged for the offences punishable under Section 147, 307/149 and 352 I.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty and were consequently tried. 6. The accused, in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. gave out that the land over which the dispute relates was recorded in the name of Nitya Nand husband of Smt. Chandrawati and after his death it vested to Tejpal and Harish Chandra. Accused Jwala Prasad set up a counter version of the incident that he and Tejpal were informed by one Pyare that Smt. Chandrawati, Nand Kishore, Ghanshyam and Rambhool were harvesting the crop of their field and when they were on their way to the field, Radhey Shyam and Ramesh besides Prahlad also joined them. They came across 8-9 persons at the culvert of the canal distributory, who were carrying away the bundles of the harvested barley crop. On the protest of Tejpal that they should drop the bundles, he was attacked and when he came to his rescue he too was hit by ‘Daranti’ and lathis. Ramesh and Radhey Shyam had wielded ‘Sankhi’ (fork like sharp pointed instrument) in self defence. No evidence was however, adduced in defence. 7. From the prosecution side Smt. Chandrawati and her two brothers, namely, Rambhool and Ghanshyam received injuries in the incident. Ramesh and Radhey Shyam had wielded ‘Sankhi’ (fork like sharp pointed instrument) in self defence. No evidence was however, adduced in defence. 7. From the prosecution side Smt. Chandrawati and her two brothers, namely, Rambhool and Ghanshyam received injuries in the incident. The medical report of the said three injured are as follows : “Injuries of Smt. Chandrawati examined by Dr. V.V.S. Malik 1. Lacerated wound 5 cm. x ½ cm. (in curve shape) bone deep on the posterior aspect of right side of scalp 12 cm. above and back ward to her right ear. 2. Lacerated wound 2 and ½ cm. x ½ cm. x ½ cm. on the posterior aspect of scalp 11 cm. back-ward to No. 1. 3. Punctured wound ½ cm. x ½ cm x bone deep on the outer part of right side of scalp 7 cm. above the lateral angle of right eye. 4. Contusion 4 cm. x 2 cm. on the lateral aspect of right fore arm 5 cm. below the elbow. 5. Abrasion 3 cm. x ½ cm. on the lateral aspect of right fore-arm 8 cm. above the wrist. 6. Contusion 7 cm. x/2 cm. on the lateral aspect of left leg 4 cm. below the knee. 7. Contusion 8 cm. x 2 cm. on the lateral aspect of left arm 7 cm. below the left shoulder. 8. Contusion 9 cm. x 1 and ½ cm. on the dorwal aspect of right hand upto second inter phalangeal joint of little finger with swelling and the movement of matacarpo phallangeal joint of corresponding finger restricted. X-ray advised. 9. Contusion 4 cm. x 2 cm. on the dorsal aspect of left hand 7 cm. below the index finger.” Injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8 were kept under observation and the rest were simple, No. 3 having been caused by a penetrating weapon and the rest by blunt weapon. The Injuries of Rambhool 1. Punctured wound 1 cm. x ½ cm. across the cartilage of external ear. 2. Lacerated wound 4 cms. X ½ cm. x bone deep on the lateral aspect of left side of skull, 7 ½ cm. above the left ear. 3. Lacerated wound 2 ½ cm. x ½ cm. on the outer aspect of skull 7 ½ cm. above the bridge of nose. 4. Lacerated wound 4 1/2 cm. x ½ cm. x ½ cm. X ½ cm. x bone deep on the lateral aspect of left side of skull, 7 ½ cm. above the left ear. 3. Lacerated wound 2 ½ cm. x ½ cm. on the outer aspect of skull 7 ½ cm. above the bridge of nose. 4. Lacerated wound 4 1/2 cm. x ½ cm. x ½ cm. x bone deep on the top of skull 6 1/2sm. Back-ward to No. 3. 5. Lacerated wound 4 cm. x ½ cm. x ½ cm. on the lateral aspect of right side of skull 7 cm. above right ear. 6. Punctured wound 1 cm. x ½ cm. x bone deep at top of skull 10 cm. back-ward to No. 3. 7. Punctured wound 1 cm. x ½ cms. X bone deep on top of skull 6 ½ cm. back-ward to No. 3. 8. Contusion 4 cm. x 2 cm. at dorsal aspect of right hand with swelling. X-ray advised. All the injuries were kept under observation and Nos. 1, 6 and 7 were caused by penetrating weapon and the rest by blunt object. The injuries of Ghanshyam are as follows : 1. Lacerated wound 3 cm. x ½ cm. x bone deep on the lateral aspect of right side of skull 8 cm. above right ear. 2. Contusion 18 cm. x 7 cm. bluish on the back or right side of chest with its upper end 12 cm. below the slope of neck. 3. Contusion 6 cm. x 3 cm. on the back of chest 5 cm. away from the lower end of Nos. 2. 4. Contusion 13 cm. x 2 and ½ cm. transversely on back of abdomen, 15 cm. below No. 2. 5. Contusion 5 cm. x 2 cm. on the back of left side of chest 9 cm. from No. 3. 6. Abrasion 8 cm. x 2 cm. on the posterior aspect of left fore-arm 14 cm. below the elbow. Injuries Nos. 1 and 6 were kept under observation, for which X-ray was advised and the rest were simple, all caused by blunt weapon. The injury reports are Exs. Ka 2 and Ka. 4 respectively and their duration was assessed from 12 to 13 hours. Thus, the medical evidence corroborates the oral testimony on the nature of weapon used as well as, on point of time. The injury reports are Exs. Ka 2 and Ka. 4 respectively and their duration was assessed from 12 to 13 hours. Thus, the medical evidence corroborates the oral testimony on the nature of weapon used as well as, on point of time. The doctor has further opined that the injuries of Ram Bhool bearing No. 8 and Nos. 1 and 4 of Ghanshyam are on the vital parts of the body. 8. Injuries received from the side of the accused appellants are as follows : Injuries of Chandra Bhan (accused) 1. Contusion 4 cm. x 2 cm. present on lateral aspect of right side of scalp 9 cm. above right ear swelling present. 2. The above mentioned injury is kept under observation for which X-ray skull (AP view and Lat. View) has been advised. This injury is caused by blunt weapon. The duration of injury is about 10 hours. Injuries of Tej Pal (accused) 1. Abrasion 2 cm. x 1 cm. present 2 cm. back of left ear. 2. Pt. Complaints of paid in right side of chest no contusion or abrasion seen. The above mentioned injuries are simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon and the duration is about 10 hours. Injuries of Jwala Parshad (accused) 1. Lacerated wound 5 cm. x ½ cm. bone present on top of scalp 6 cm. above right eye. 2. Contusion 11 cm. x 1 and ½ cm. bluish pink in colour present on posterior aspect of right forearm 6 cm. below right elbow joint (Linear in portion). 3. Contusion 6 cm. x 2 cm. buish pink in colour swelling present, present ransversly 3 cm. above & laterally to injury No. (2). The injury No. 1 has been kept under observation for which X-ray scalp (Lat view and AP view) has been advised, the injury Nos. (2) and (3) are simple in nature. The above mentioned injury are caused by blunt weapon. The duration is about 11 hours. The injuries of Prahlad (son of Jwala Prasad) 1. Contusion 5 cm. x 2 cm. present on dorsal aspect of left thumb swelling present. The movement at inter bhalangeal joint of left thumb restricted bluish pink in colour. The above mentioned injury is kept under observation for which X-ray (AP view and Lat view) of left thumb has been advised. The injury is caused by blunt weapon & the duration is about 11:30 hours. present on dorsal aspect of left thumb swelling present. The movement at inter bhalangeal joint of left thumb restricted bluish pink in colour. The above mentioned injury is kept under observation for which X-ray (AP view and Lat view) of left thumb has been advised. The injury is caused by blunt weapon & the duration is about 11:30 hours. X-ray report of Ghanshyam. 1. X-ray skull-Rt. Lateral 2. X-ray-Lt. Forearm (AP view x Lat view) M.I. A black mole on right side of chest 4 cm. lateral to right nipple. Skull No bony injury seen. Left Forearm Fracture of the lower end of ulna bone seen. X-ray report of Chandrawati. 1. X-ray skull-Rt. Lateral 2. X-ray-Rt. Hand AP view M.I. A black mole on right side of face 4 cm. below right eye. Skull No bony injury seen. Left Forearm Fracture of base of proximal Phalux of right little finger seen. 9. P.W.1 Smt. Chandrawati, the complainant as well as the injured has supported the prosecution story as stated in the F.I.R. She deposed that when she alongwith her brothers, namely, Ghanshyam and Ram Bhool was coming after harvesting the crop and reached near the ‘Pullia’ the accused Jwala Prasad, Chandrabhan, who are present in the Court and Tejpal, Vasudev, Sardar, Ramesh, Radhey and Ram Charan came at the Pullia and assaulted her with lathies and dragged her in the field of Dongar where she was outraged of her modesty and thrusted the bottom of a lathi in her vagina. She further deposed that the accused had also assaulted her brothers with Sankhi, lathi and spear. Thereafter on the alarm raised by her, Rajbir Singh, Lakhmi Singh, Hari Singh and others came at the place of occurrence and saved her alongwith her brothers from the accused. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by one Nand Kishore on which she had put her thumb impression. P.W.2 Ram Bhool, who is the brother of P.W.1 has also supported the prosecution story as has been stated by P.W.1. 10. Dr. V.V.S. Malik, who had examined the three injured persons, namely, Smt. Chandrawati, Ram Bhool and Ghanshyam on 18.3.1977 at 11:35 p.m. and on 19.3.1977 at 12:20 p.m. in the night respectively was examined as P.W.3. P.W.2 Ram Bhool, who is the brother of P.W.1 has also supported the prosecution story as has been stated by P.W.1. 10. Dr. V.V.S. Malik, who had examined the three injured persons, namely, Smt. Chandrawati, Ram Bhool and Ghanshyam on 18.3.1977 at 11:35 p.m. and on 19.3.1977 at 12:20 p.m. in the night respectively was examined as P.W.3. K.P. Singh, the Station Officer of police station Pahasu and in whose presence the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged and who had conducted the investigation and submitted charge-sheet marked as Ex. Ka.6 against three appellants and rest of the accused was examined as P.W.4. Dr. H.U.K. Zuberi the Radiologist, who has conducted the X-ray of injured Ghanshyam, Prahlad and also accused Jwala Prasad and has proved the X-ray report of said injured persons was examined as P.W.5. Dr. S.K. Bhatnagar, who has conducted the internal examination of Smt. Chandrawati9 on 19.3.1977 at 4:30 p.m. was examined as P.W.6. 11. Sri A.B.L. Gour, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the incident has taken place in some other manner and not as stated by the prosecution. He submits that P.W.1 Chandrawati, who is the informant has admitted in her cross-examination that the appellants were the owner of the plot in question and on the date of incident they were having physical possession of the same and with respect to the same, litigation was going on between the parties as after the death of her husband Nityanand, the disputed property was vested in accused Tejpal, who was her Jeth and Harish Chandra, who was her Devar. She further admitted that before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, she has lost the litigation and the disputed plot had been handed over to appellants Tejpal and Harish Chandra. It was further stated by her that after the death of Nityanand, she did not pay any revenue with respect to the disputed plot to the Revenue Authorities. She has also stated that she had not given any application to any authority that she is ploughing the disputed land and she is not being charged the revenue fee for the same. She has also stated that she had not given any application to any authority that she is ploughing the disputed land and she is not being charged the revenue fee for the same. He submitted that from the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that she was not having any right over the disputed plot and on the other hand the accused appellants were having possession of the same on the date of the incident, hence she was the trespasser on the said land alongwith her brother and when she was resisted by the accused appellants from harvesting the crops, the brothers of P.W.1 assaulted the appellants with lathies and Daranties. He submitted that the appellants Jwala Prasad, Tejpal, Chandrabhan and Prahlad son of Jwala Prasad from the side of appellants have also received injuries at the hand of the brothers of P.W.1, namely, Ram Bhool and Ghanshyam. He further submits that appellant Jwala Prasad had received serious injuries at the hands of complainant’s brother and his parietal bone was fractured and Prahlad son of Jwala Prasad had received fracture of his metacarpal bone. In this respect, he has drawn the attention of the Court towards the statement of P.W.5 Dr. H.U.K. Zuberi, who in his cross-examination had admitted the fact that on 22.3.1977, he had performed the X-ray of head of Jwala Prasad and has found that his right perital bone was fractured and he had prepared the X-ray report which has been filed as Ex. Ka.6 in S.T. No. 643 of 1980. He has further proved the X-ray of injured Prahlad son of Jwala Prasad and found that his metacarpal bone was fractured. He has also performed the X-ray of left hand of Prahlad which is marked as Ex. Ka.7. He further submits that it was the complainant side, who were the aggressor on the disputed plot which belong to the appellants Tejpal. 12. Sri Gaur next submitted that no explanation has been given by the prosecution regarding the injuries received by the side of the accused appellants though appellant No. 1 Jwala Prasad has received the fracture of his right parietal bone and his son Prahlad has received fracture of his metacarpal bone. 12. Sri Gaur next submitted that no explanation has been given by the prosecution regarding the injuries received by the side of the accused appellants though appellant No. 1 Jwala Prasad has received the fracture of his right parietal bone and his son Prahlad has received fracture of his metacarpal bone. He submitted that the trial Court has erred in recording the finding of conviction against the appellants though it was the complainant side, who was aggressor on the disputed plot and also caused injuries to the accused appellants and the accused appellants in their self defence had caused injuries to the complainant and her brothers, hence the judgment and order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside by this Court. 13. He submitted that if there are serious injuries on the side of the accused then it is the duty of the prosecution to explain the said injuries. He is support of his arguments has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and others, 2001 SCC (Cri) 1070, wherein it was held that it cannot be held as a matter of law or invariably a rule that whenever the accused sustained an injury in the same occurrence, the prosecution is obliged to explain the injury and on the failure of the prosecution to do so the prosecution case should be disbelieved. Before non explanation of the injuries on the persons of the accused persons by the prosecution witnesses may affect the prosecution case, the Court has to be satisfied of the existence of two conditions (i) that the injury on the person of the accused was of a serious nature; and (ii) that such injuries must have been caused at the time of the occurrence in question. Non-explanation of injuries assumes greater significance when the evidence consists of interested or partisan witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. Non-explanation of injuries assumes greater significance when the evidence consists of interested or partisan witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. Where the evidence is clear, cogent and credit worthy and where the Court can distinguish the truth from falsehood the mere fact that the injuries on the side of the accused persons are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and consequently the whole of the prosecution case. 14. He has also drawn the attention of the Court towards paras 29 and 30 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mano Dutt and another v. State of U.P., 2012 (77) ACC 209, which also followed the law laid down in the case of Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and others (Supra). 15. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution story which has been set up by P.W.1 Smt. Chandrawati that she was stripped down by the accused and dragged in a field and lathi was pushed in her vagina, is absolutely false, fabricated and concocted only to give serious colour to the present case. In support of his argument, he has drawn the attention of the Court towards the evidence of P.W.4 Dr. V.V.S. Malik, who had examined the complainant Smt. Chandrawati alongwith her two brothers on 18.3.1977 at 11:35 p.m. and he found no injuries on the private part of her body. He has further drawn the attention of the Court towards cross-examination of P.W.3 Dr. Malik, who has deposed that P.W. 1 Smt. Chandrawati has not complained any injury on her vagina. He has further drawn the attention of the Court towards evidence of P.W.6 Dr. S.K. Bhatnagar, who has also admitted the fact that there was no injury found on the external part of her vagina and further no bleeding was found on her vagina, hence he submitted that from the evidence of two doctors, it is crystal clear that the story regarding outraging of her modesty is falsified by the medical report of Smt. Chandrawati. 16. 16. He lastly submitted that the appellants were stated to have assaulted the complainant and her brothers with lathies, Sankhi but the complainant in her cross-examination has admitted the fact that she did not mention in the F.I.R. that any accused was having Sankhi and she got written in the F.I.R. whatever the Daroga has told her. She further deposed that she has also not given any statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that any of the accused was armed with Sankhi. He has further pointed out that the scribe of the F.I.R. Nand Kishore with whom the complainant was living, was also the scribe in previous cases lodged by the complainant and used to do pairvi in all the criminal cases initiated by her. He further pointed out that a cross case of the present case was also lodged from the side of the accused appellants against the complainant, her brothers and Nand Kishore which was registered as S.T. No. 643 of 1980 but the trial of the said case ended into acquittal. He submitted that the F.I.R. of the incident from the side of the appellants was lodged against the complainant and others at prior point of time and thereafter in order to escape the criminal liability the present F.I.R. has been lodged by the complainant against them. 17. On the other hand, Sri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offence in question and has submitted that the theory of self defence which has been pleaded by the appellants to protect their property from the complainant and his brothers, is absolutely false and the trial Court has rightly held that it was the appellants, who were aggressors. In support of his submission, he has drawn the attention of the Court towards the finding recorded by the trial Court regarding the property in dispute and has submitted that though the complainant has lost the litigation from the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation but she had challenged the said order before this Court in Civil Misc. In support of his submission, he has drawn the attention of the Court towards the finding recorded by the trial Court regarding the property in dispute and has submitted that though the complainant has lost the litigation from the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation but she had challenged the said order before this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7379 of 179 in which the operation of the order Deputy Director of Consolidation has been stayed by this Court on 25.8.1978, hence the order which was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be treated to be a final one in the totality and circumstances of the case and Smt. Chandrawati should be held to be in possession of the disputed property on the date of occurrence. He further submitted that so far as the non explanation about the injuries of the appellants are concerned, the injuries received from the side of the appellants appear to be simple one, hence there was no need to explain the same, hence the appeal should be dismissed and the order passed by the trial Court should be affirmed. 18. Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 19. So far as first submission of learned counsel for the appellants regarding the ownership of the property in question is concerned, it is true that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation against which the complainant has preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7379 of 1977 before this Court and the same has been stayed on 25.8.1978 clearly shows that on the date of occurrence, i.e., 18.3.1977 there was actual physical possession of appellants Tejpal and his brother Harish Chandra on the disputed land and the accused were entitled for the said possession and they were having the same. The complainant and her brothers had illegally entered into the said plot, harvested the crop and were taking it away which was resisted by the accused appellants on account of which the present incident has taken place in which the accused appellants Jwala Prasad and his son Prahlad have also sustained injuries at the hands of the complainant’s brothers causing fracture of parietal bone of appellant Jwala Prasad and fracture of metacarpal bone of his son Prahlad. From the evidence of P.W.1 Chandrawati it is also clear that she in her cross-examination had admitted that she had lost the litigation with accused Tejpal, Harish Chandra, who were brothers of her husband and in possession of the said plot, hence she was not having any right or physical possession over the disputed property thus it cannot be said that it was the accused, who were the aggressors on the disputed plot. The finding recorded by the trial Court with respect to the same appears to be unreasonable, hence the same is set aside and the conviction and sentence of the appellants is liable to be set aside on this count. 20. So far as the second argument of learned counsel for the appellants is concerned that there is no explanation of the injuries found on the persons of appellants Jwala Prasad and his son Prahlad and others also appears to be correct as appellant Jwala Prasad had received serious injuries at the hands of the complainant’s brother and others as it is evident from the evidence of P.W. 5, who has admitted the fact that the parietal bone of appellant Jwala Prasad and metacarpal bone of his son Prahlad have been fractured. The said injuries are serious in nature and has been caused in the present occurrence. 21. Taking into account the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and others (Supra), non explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused appellant Nos. 1 and 2 other persons from his side by the prosecution, is fatal to the case of the prosecution, hence on this count also the appellants are entitled for acquittal and the finding which has been recorded by the trial Court in this aspect of the matter, cannot be sustained, hence the same is hereby set aside. 22. So far as last argument of learned counsel for the appellants regarding concoction and fabrication of the story of thrusting lathi in the vagina of the complainant also appears to be correct as the same does not borne out to be true from her medical reports and also from the evidence of the two doctors, who have medically examined Smt. Chandrawati. Moreover, from the evidence of P.W.1 it is apparent that Nand Kishore, who was the scribe of the F.I.R. was inimical to accused appellants, hence he was instrumental in getting the things fabricated against the accused in collusion with the police personnel and he has introduced the said story to give serious colour to the present incident in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, hence in the absence of any cogent evidence with respect to the said allegation, it cannot be believed to be true. 23. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants that during the pendency of appeal, appellant Tejpal has died and his appeal, i.e., Crl. Appeal No. 2154 of 1981 stood abated vide order dated 26.4.2006. 24. So far as Jwala Prasad is concerned he is aged to 85 years and appellant Chandrabhan is aged about 62 years of aged, hence their conviction and sentence by the trial Court is hereby set aside. They acquitted for the said offence. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds and sureties are discharged. 25. The appeal stands allowed.