Kalimullah Khan,J. This Government Appeal No. 459 of 1984 under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed by State of U.P. Against the impugned judgment and order dated 26.10.1983 passed by learned Special Judge (E.C. Act) Etah in Session Trial No.- 115 of 1982 State of U.P. Vs. Naubat and five others (Crime No. 160 of 1981) under Section 147, 148, 307/149 I.P.C., P.S.- Soron, District- Etah whereby learned trial court has acquitted all the six respondents from the charge of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 307/149 I.P.C. 2. The impugned judgment and order has been challenged on the ground that it is against the weight of evidence on record and is against the law and facts of the case. Prosecution version was more probable and the accused were aggressor. The grievous injuries sustained at accused side is manipulated injuries. The absence of injury on the person of first informant Lakhan Singh does not establish the fact that he was not present on the spot and at any rate the judgment is perverse. 3. We have heard Sri D.I. Fairid learned A.G.A. and Sri B.D. Agarwal learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 4. In nutshell, the prosecution case is that parties are on inimical terms to each other. Out of enmity accused party dig a pit in the way of informant Lakhan Singh and put therein a heavy log of wood to obstruct his way. On being objected to it all the six accused Naubat, Ganga Singh, Ram Singh, Om Vir, Ram Swaroop and Netrapal armed with gun, country made pistol with cartridges and lathies attacked the informant Lakhan Singh. By then his son Ram Bharose and grandson Ram Autar had also reached from their field. Accused assaulted them with lathies, gun and country made pistol with intention to commit their murder. Smt. Ramwati, daughter-in-law and Narian Devi, grand-daughter of the informant came to their rescue but they were also assaulted with lathi. Ram Autar and Narian Devi sustained pellet injuries. On hue and cry Rohan Singh, Bheekh Chandra, Chhote and Sone Lal etc. were attracted and saw the incident. Smt. Ramwati, daughter-in-law and Narian Devi, grand-daughter of the informant came to their rescue but they were also assaulted with lathi. Ram Autar and Narian Devi sustained pellet injuries. On hue and cry Rohan Singh, Bheekh Chandra, Chhote and Sone Lal etc. were attracted and saw the incident. The accused had checked the way to police station and as a result of which the F.I.R. could not be lodged prior to 22:15 hours on 26.6.1981 while aforesaid incident had occurred on the same day at 1:00 P.M. The police station lies at a distance of one mile from the scene of incident. 5. First informant Lakhan Singh lodged his written report with police station Soron and on its basis Check Report was drawn and case was registered in the General Diary on 26.6.1981 at 22:15 hours. 6. Investigation followed. Injured Ram Autar, Smt. Ramwati, Smt. Narian Devi and Ram Bharoshe were medically examined. In the x-ray report of Ram Autar fracture of left upper arm region and radio opaque shadow was seen in the left upper arm region. Rest of the injured sustained injuries simple in nature and none of the injuries of either of the injured except the aforesaid injury of Ram Autar was found grievous in nature. 7. Accused Naubat, Ram Swaroop and Netrapal Singh were charged for the offence punishable under Section 147 and 307/149 I.P.C. whereas accused Ganga Singh, Ram Singh and Om Vir were charged for the offence punishable under Section 148 and 307/149 I.P.C. 8. They denied the charge and claimed their trial. 9. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined four witnesses in all. Lakhan Singh (P.W.-1) is the first informant of the case, he has proved written report as Exhibit Ka-1 and deposed on facts. Bheek Chandra (P.W.-2) is a witness of an eye account. However, he is not an injured witness but he has supported the prosecution case as embedded in the F.I.R. Ram Autar (P.W.-3) is an injured witness, he has proved the prosecution case. Sri Nem Singh Sharma, S.O. (P.W.-4), is the Investigating Officer and he has proved the investigation. 10. Accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They challenged the prosecution evidence and attributed their false implication in this case on account of party friction and enmity. 11. Accused Om Vir stated that he is the son of Naubat Singh accused. Sri Nem Singh Sharma, S.O. (P.W.-4), is the Investigating Officer and he has proved the investigation. 10. Accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They challenged the prosecution evidence and attributed their false implication in this case on account of party friction and enmity. 11. Accused Om Vir stated that he is the son of Naubat Singh accused. Netrapal Singh accused-respondent stated that there is a cross-case pending. 12. Having heard, the learned counsel for the parties learned trial court vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.10.1983 acquitted all the six accused from the charges leveled against them. 13. Feeling aggrieved, present Government Appeal has been preferred. 14. The perusal of the record shows that learned trial court has made appraisal of evidence in accordance with law and recorded the finding of acquittal of accused on following grounds:- 1. That there is undue delay in lodging F.I.R.; 2. That first informant Lakhan Singh, against whom direct enmity was alleged, has received no injury at all; 3. That no independent witness has been examined in the court although number of witnesses have been cited in the report; 4. That the medical evidence is inconsistent to the ocular testimony inasmuch as number and nature of gun shot injuries vis-a-vis number of accused who were assigned the role of firing show that the prosecution story has been highly exaggerated which is not reliable and lastly; 5. That prosecution has failed to explain the grievous injury of accused Naubat and has tried to suppress it. 15. We have given our anxious judicial thoughts over the evidence on record keeping in mind the aforesaid grounds of acquittal of accused recorded by learned trial court. 16. Nowhere in the F.I.R., it has been mentioned that accused Naubat Singh sustained any grievous injury. However, in cross-examination Bheekh Chandra (P.W.-2) accepted the fracture in the left leg of accused Naubat but tried to suppress the fact that Naubat has sustained a fracture in the incident in question and deposed that Naubat fell down in a pit and got his left leg fractured. He falsly claimed that he had already stated this fact to I.O. in his statement. But the I.O. (P.W.-4) has denied the fact that any such statement was given to him by Bheekh Chandra (P.W.-2). Moreover, except this witness Bheek Chandra, no other witness including the first informant tried to give any explanation to it. He falsly claimed that he had already stated this fact to I.O. in his statement. But the I.O. (P.W.-4) has denied the fact that any such statement was given to him by Bheekh Chandra (P.W.-2). Moreover, except this witness Bheek Chandra, no other witness including the first informant tried to give any explanation to it. In view of the fact, that this explanation has come for the first time in the court through the mouth of Bheekh Chandra (P.W.-2) after the suggestion of defence given to informant (P.W.-1) in his cross-examination that Naubat Singh had got fracture in his left leg in the incident and prosecution was suppressing this fact, such explanation cannot be held good. Learned trial court has rightly disbelieved the said explanation and based it a ground of acquitted of accused. The injury sustained by Naubat accused-respondent cannot be said to be superficial or simple in nature. Non-explanation of the grievous injuries of accused by itself is sufficient to acquit him. 17. It is admitted to defence that incident took place on 26.6.1981 at 1:00 P.M. It is admitted to prosecution through the evidence of first informant that there is a cross-case under Section 325 I.P.C. pending against him and his family members. Cross F.I.R. was registered at police station Soron, District Etah on 27.6.1981 at 16:30 hours at the instance of accused Naubat Singh wherein he has admitted the date, time and place of the incident. The aforesaid F.I.R. was registered against first informant Lakhan Singh; injured Ram Bharose; Ram Autar and other family members. The said F.I.R. was registered as cognizable rapat No. 135 and case crime no. 160-A under Section 147 and 325 I.P.C. The injuries found on the person of Naubat accused was noted in the G.D. Since the prosecution admits during trial that Naubat accused had sustained grievous injuries in his left leg, therefore, it was its bounden duty to explain the said injury. But it was deliberately concealed and, therefore, the Bench has doubt in its mind about the veracity of the prosecution case as definitely the genesis of the incident prima facie appears to have been suppressed. If prosecution does not come with clean hands, its case must fail. But it was deliberately concealed and, therefore, the Bench has doubt in its mind about the veracity of the prosecution case as definitely the genesis of the incident prima facie appears to have been suppressed. If prosecution does not come with clean hands, its case must fail. Informant P.W.-1 claims that he was also medically examined in this case but in his evidence and also in the evidence of Ram Autar, it has come that he does not sustain any injury in the incident. Informant P.W.-1 has clearly stated that Naubat accused did not sustain any injury in the incident but Bheek Chandra (P.W.-2) has admitted in cross-examination that Naubat accused has sustained injury in his left leg when he fell down in the pit and the wooden log fell on his leg. As stated above the aforesaid stand of prosecution to explain the injury of accused Naubat did not find favour of this Court. No reliance can be place on the testimony of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3. 18. Undisputedly, there has been inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. as pointed out in the judgment. But the said delay has been tried to explain by saying that the way to police station was checked by accused. Be it known, that delay is delay explained or unexplained. In view of the delayed report enough time was available to the informant and his party to concoct and fabricate the prosecution story against accused. 19. Admittedly, no independent witness has been examined in this case although there were number of witnesses who had witnessed the incident. Only related and interested witnesses have been examined in this case. True it is, that the testimony of injured witness cannot be disbelieved simply on the ground that they were injured witnesses. But their testimony is to be gone under strict judicial scrutiny and when we make appraisal of their testimony, we found that none of witnesses on fact are wholly reliable witnesses. At least three accused persons are said to have made intermittent gun fire but except Ram Autar none of the prosecution witnesses sustained even a pellet injury. The injury report of Ram Autar shows that he has sustained only two pellet injury. At least three accused persons are said to have made intermittent gun fire but except Ram Autar none of the prosecution witnesses sustained even a pellet injury. The injury report of Ram Autar shows that he has sustained only two pellet injury. One at his left shoulder joint 1cm x 1cm front of left upper arm 13cm below the left shoulder joint and the other gun shot wound was .5cm x .5 cm front of left fore-arm 8cm above the left wrist joint. Besides an abrasion 1cm x 1cm dorsal aspect of right foot 5cm below the right ankle joint. Except this injury, no other firearm injury was received by anyone. Hence, the medical evidence on this issue is inconsistent with the ocular testimony of all the three prosecution witnesses examined in this case who claimed that all the firearm wielder made intermittent gun firing. 20. Smt. Ramwati has sustained a lacerated wound 3cm x .5cm on right side scalp 7cm above the right ear. Besides a contusion 6cm x 5cm on dorsal aspect of left hand 4cm below the left wrist joint. 21. Smt. Narain Devi has sustained lacerated wound 2cm x .5cm inner aspect of right leg lower part 2cm above the right medial mellolus at 1 o'clock position. 22. Sri Ram Bharose has sustained contusion 4cm x 3cm right side scalp 3cm above the right ear. Direction obleque, colour reddish. He received one another contusion 3cm x 3cm right thumb at Tip. Besides an abrasion 3cm x 1cm inner aspect of left forearm 4cm above the left wrist joint. All these injuries were simple in nature. The pellet injury sustained by Ram Autar was not dangerous to life and, therefore, even if the prosecution story is taken to be correct for a moment, no offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out against the accused. But since the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the case and did not explain the fracture of the left leg sustained by accused Naubat, we are not inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal delivered by learned trial court which has been impugned in this Government Appeal. It does not mean that the injured witnesses P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 did not sustain any injury in the admitted incident, it only means that the complete correct facts about the mode and manner of assault and incident have not been brought on record. It does not mean that the injured witnesses P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 did not sustain any injury in the admitted incident, it only means that the complete correct facts about the mode and manner of assault and incident have not been brought on record. Therefore, it is not safe to base conviction of accused in this case especially when the trial court has recorded a finding of acquittal of all the accused which is another circumstance of their innocence. Injury on the person of a witness may be a guarantee of his presence at spot but it is no guarantee of truth of his deposition. 23. The view of acquittal taken by learned trial court is quite possible and there is nothing to interfere with the aforesaid finding of acquittal. 24. During the pendency of this Government Appeal respondent Nos- 1, 5 and 6 namely Naubat, Ram Swaroop and Netrapal Singh had died. The appeal against them have already been abated vide order dated 16.12.2005 and 11.4.2007. 25. The Government Appeal No. 459 of 1984 is hereby dismissed. ________________