JUDGMENT 1. - Ram Vilas, his wife Smt. Vimla Devi, two daughters Smt. Mamta and Smt. Rani @ Rajni and two sons Neelesh @ Kalu and Pawan, vide impugned judgment dated 21.11.2006, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputli, District Jaipur, have been held guilty of offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324/149, 307/149 and 302/149 IPC. 2. Four accused, namely Ram Vilas, Vimla Devi, Mamta and Rani @ Rajni, were sentenced vide a separate order of even date for the offence under Section 147 IPC, to undergo one year's R.I. For the offence under Section 148 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo one year's R.I.; for the offence under Section 341 IPC to undergo fifteen days' R.I. and for the offence under Section 324/149 IPC to undergo two years' R.I. They all were also sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, for the offence under Section 307/149 IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's R.I. For the offence under Section 302/149 IPC, the were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. The trial Judge has further ordered that fine so deposited shall be paid as compensation to the wife of the deceased Ganpat Lal. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Neelesh @ Kalu, vide a separate order dated 18.1.2007, was also awarded similar sentence on all the six counts. 4. All the five accused, being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, filed two separate appeals. Smt. Mamta, Smt. Rani @ Rajni, Smt. Vimla Devi and Ram Vilas have instituted D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1220/2006, whereas, Neelesh @ Kalu has filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 807/2007. Since in both the appeals common judgment dated 21.11.2006 regarding conviction has been assailed and the two separate orders of sentence have also been challenged, we shall decide both the appeals together. 5. In the present case, Ganpat Lal, received incised injuries and died. The appellants have been convicted for causing murder of Ganpat Lal and injuries to Surendra (P.W.2) and Jairam (P.W.6), both sons of the deceased Ganpat Lal. 6. The criminal proceedings were set into motion on the statement made by Surendra (P.W.2) at B.D.M. Hospital, Kotputli. The occurrence in the present case had taken place on 6.3.2004 at 6:55 PM, in Jogiyon Ka Mohalla, Pawata. 6. The criminal proceedings were set into motion on the statement made by Surendra (P.W.2) at B.D.M. Hospital, Kotputli. The occurrence in the present case had taken place on 6.3.2004 at 6:55 PM, in Jogiyon Ka Mohalla, Pawata. The statement of injured Surendra (P.W.2) was recorded on 6.3.2004 at B.B.S. Hospital, Kotputli by S.I. Surendra Singh (P.W.22), Police Line (R). On the basis of statement so recorded, formal FIR bearing No. 67/04 was registered at Police Station Pragpura, for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307 and 302 IPC. The special report reached Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kotputli on 9.3.2004 at 11:00 AM. 7. The statement (Exhibit-P/3) made by Surendra (P.W.2), on the basis of which criminal proceedings were sent into motion, when translated into English, reads as under:- "On 6.3.2004, at 7:00-8:00 AM, I, my father Ganpat Lal and my younger brother Jairam, had gone to the shop of Dipu Khandelwal for doing our work. After finishing our daily work, I had sent my father Ganpat Lal and brother Jairam to home and I stayed at the shop to settle the accounts regarding labour work done by us. After settling the accounts, 4-5 minutes later, at about 6:45 PM, I left the shop for home. At about 6:55 PM, I reached at Jogiyon Ka Mohalla. I saw that my father has been made to fall on the road and Ram Vilas Sonar, his sons, Neelesh @ Kalu and Pawan, his wife Vimla and daughters Mamta and Rani @ Rajni, were beating him. They were also causing injuries to my younger brother Jairam. They were armed with Gupti, Chhar and lathis. Hearing cries of my father and brother, I went forward to save them. Then Neelesh @ Kalu and Ram Vilas Soni gave me injuries on the nose. Neelesh @ Kalu and Ram Vilas were armed with Gupti. Others were armed with lathis and Vimla was armed with Chhar (iron rod). This occurrence was witnessed by people residing in Jogiyon Ka Mohalla. I raised noise then Kailash Jat and Pappu came to the spot. They had seen the entire occurrence and rescued us. Due to fear, I ran to my home and closed the door of the house. These people followed me to my house and gave pushes to door. They were saying that 'today he should also be finished'. Meanwhile, police arrived at the spot. They had seen the entire occurrence and rescued us. Due to fear, I ran to my home and closed the door of the house. These people followed me to my house and gave pushes to door. They were saying that 'today he should also be finished'. Meanwhile, police arrived at the spot. The police brought me, my brother Jairam and my father Ganpat Lal to hospital at Kotputli. From there, my brother and father were sent to Jaipur. All the above persons, with common intention have caused injuries to us with an intention to commit murder. My father has died. Action be taken. LTI Surendra Sd/- Surendra Singh, S.I., S.H.O. Pragpura Camp, B.D.M. Hospital, Kotputli 8:45 PM dated 6-3-04"As stated by us earlier, on the basis of above statement, a FIR was registered. The above FIR was investigated and all the five accused were sent for trial. Their co-accused Pawan being juvenile, was separately sent for trial before the Juvenile Justice Board. 8. It is essential for us to notice the medical evidence. On 6.3.2004, at 7:40 PM, Dr. Birbal Yadav (P.W.3) on the request made by police, had examined Jairam (P.W.6). He found a stab penetrataing injury on the abdoman of Jairam (P.W.6) as per medico-Legal Report (Exhibit-P/12). The injury has been noticed as under:- "(1) Incised penetrating 3 x 2cm x abdominal cavity deep reterated 4cm left side to umbilicus. A portion of omentum coming out from wound." 9. On the same day, Surendra (P.W.2) was examined by Dr. Birbal Yadav (P.W.3). He stated that this witness suffered one injury on the nose as per Medico-Legal Report (Exhibit-P/13). The following injury was found on the person of Surendra:- "Incised wound on nose, 11/2 x 11/2 cm x bone deep, sharp." 10. Dr. Birbal Yadav (P.W.3) was a member of Medico-Legal Board, which on 7.3.2004, at 10:00 AM, had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ganpat Lal, father of Surendra (P.W.2) and Jairam (P.W.6).In the Post-Mortem Report, eleven incised injuries were found on the person of Ganpat Lal. In Post-Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/15) following injuries were noticed:- (1) Incised wound extending from etc. of nose on right side to etc of nose on left side transversely placed cartilage of septum cut transversely 6 x 11/2 cm. (2) Incised wound 2 x 11/2 cm x bone deep on junction of sternum membrane and sternum just right side to middle line. In Post-Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/15) following injuries were noticed:- (1) Incised wound extending from etc. of nose on right side to etc of nose on left side transversely placed cartilage of septum cut transversely 6 x 11/2 cm. (2) Incised wound 2 x 11/2 cm x bone deep on junction of sternum membrane and sternum just right side to middle line. (3) Incised wound 2 x 11/2 cm x bone deep on left costal margin 5 cm left to mid line. (4) Incised wound 2 x 11/2 cm x bone deep 2 cm lateral to injury No.(3). (5) Incised wound 2 x 11/2 cm x bone deep at left anterior axillary bone just above left costal margin. (6) Incised wound 1 x 11/2 cm x skin deep on left side of abdomen. (7) Incised wound 2 x 1/2 cm x muscle deep on lateral aspect of the elbow. (8) Incised wound 2 x 1/2 x cm x muscle deep on middle ⅓ of right low arm. (9) Incised wound 2 x 11/2 cm x muscle deep near injury No.(8). (10) Incised penetrating wound 11/2 x 11/2 cm x abdominal cavity deep at posterior axillary line on right side between 11th and 12th rib. Direction of wound medially and upward. (11) Incised wound 11/2 x 11/2 cm x muscle deep on right supra scapula region. Skull bone are intact membrance and brain matter healthy." 11. A perusal of injuries on the person of Jairam (P.W.6), Surendra (P.W.2) and the deceased Ganpat Lal, reveal that they have received incised penetrating wounds. Therefore, they can be caused by Gupti, which in the FIR is attributed to Neelesh @ Kalu and Ram Vilas. 12. Dr. Birbal Yadav (P.W.3) in cross-examination had also stated that all the injuries noticed by him in medico-legal report of Jairam (Exhibit-P/12), Surendra (Exhibit-P/13) and Post-Mortem Report of Ganpat Lal (Exhibit-P/15) can be caused with one weapon and by separate weapons. 13. Dr. Ashwani Goyal (P.W.4) was member of the Medico-Legal Board, which had conducted Post-Mortem. This witness had also proved the Post-Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/15). 14. Dr. S.C. Dutt (P.W.8) had conducted operation on the person of Jairam (P.W.6). He proved operation notes as Exhibit-P/28. This witness stated that blood was drained out of the abdomen and the injury had caused perforation in the mesenteric and intestine. 15. This witness had also proved the Post-Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/15). 14. Dr. S.C. Dutt (P.W.8) had conducted operation on the person of Jairam (P.W.6). He proved operation notes as Exhibit-P/28. This witness stated that blood was drained out of the abdomen and the injury had caused perforation in the mesenteric and intestine. 15. To prove that on the same date, time and in the same occurrence, accused Neelesh @ Kalu had also suffered injuries, defence examined Dr. Birbal Yadav (P.W.3) as D.W.2. This witness stated that on 6.3.2004, at 9:00 PM, he had examined Neelesh @ Kalu s/o Ram Vilas and had found nine injuries on his person. This witness proved medico-legal report (Exhibit-D/8), in which following injuries have been noticed:- "(1) Incised wound, 7 x 1cm x scalp deep, left fronto-parietal region. (2) Two incised wound 2 x 1/2 cm x scalp deep, left side of head. (3) Incised wound, 61/2 x 1 cm, scalp deep, left parietal region. (4) Incised wound, 31/2 x 1/2 cm, scalp deep, back side of head. (5) Abrasion 5 x 2cm, left shoulder. (6) Abrasion 15 x 2cm, on the left supra-scapular region. (7) Bruise 1 x 1cm, on the left leg. (8) Bruise 1 x 1cm, on the right leg. (9) Bruise 1 x 1cm, on the right knee." It is to be noted that there were four injuries on the head of the accused-appellant Neelesh @ Kalu. 16. It is pertinent to note here that the witnesses have not admitted causing of injuries to Neelesh @ Kalu. Thus, it has been very seriously contended before us that due to non-explanation of the injuries on the person of accused appellant Neelesh @ Kalu, we should throw the entire case of the prosecution out, as witnesses have deliberately suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence. 17. The entire case of the prosecution revolves around the testimony of two injured eye-witnesses, namely Surendra (P.W.2) and Jairam (P.W.6), and three eye-witnesses, namely Hanuman Sahai (P.W.1), Pappu Lal (P.W.13), and Kailash (P.W.24). 18. Before we analise the evidence emerging from the statement of these five eye-witnesses, we shall take note of arguments raised by Mr. Vijayant Nirwan. On the day, counsel for the appellants had not appeared, we had appointed Mr. Vijayant Nirwan as Amicus Curiae. Mr. Rajendra Soni with Nitesh Garg and Mr. 18. Before we analise the evidence emerging from the statement of these five eye-witnesses, we shall take note of arguments raised by Mr. Vijayant Nirwan. On the day, counsel for the appellants had not appeared, we had appointed Mr. Vijayant Nirwan as Amicus Curiae. Mr. Rajendra Soni with Nitesh Garg and Mr. Mohit Soni, being counsel for the appellants, today at the time of arguments have caused appearance. The learned Amicu Curiae and the counsel for the appellants have raised the following arguments before us:- (a) That there are serious injuries on the person of Neelesh @ Kalu and the same have not been explained by the prosecution. (b) That the prosecution has suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence. (c) That Neelesh @ Kalu appearing as witness as (D.W.1), stated that he has caused injuries in his right of self defence. Thus, it is a case where we should grant right of self defence to the appellant Neelesh and acquit all the appellants. (d) That there is delay in reaching of Special Report. On the day of registration of case i.e. 6.3.2004 Ganpat Lal had already died and yet the Special Report reached Illaqa Magistrate after three days on 9.3.2004. Delay in reaching of Special Report has been used for consultations and deliberations to inflat number of accused and the entire family members consisting of six persons who have been named as accused. (e) That in the present case, one weapon has been used and all injuries can be caused to Ganpat Lal, Surendra and Jairam with one weapon i.e. Gupti. 19. Mr. Aladeen Khan, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that defence was improbable. Injured witnesses will be the last person to falsely implicate the accused. It is further submitted that the harm caused to the complainant side is much more than the injuries received by the accused. Therefore, if the court comes to conclusion that Neelesh @ Kalu has suffered injuries in the occurrence, then the only conclusion at which the court can arrive is to hold the accused as aggressor. 20. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the complainant Surendra (P.W.2) has stated that Neelesh @ Kalu and Ram Vilas were armed with Gupti, Vimla Devi was armed with Chhar (iron rod) and the remaining two daughters, namely Mamta and Rani @ Rajni were armed with lathis. 20. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the complainant Surendra (P.W.2) has stated that Neelesh @ Kalu and Ram Vilas were armed with Gupti, Vimla Devi was armed with Chhar (iron rod) and the remaining two daughters, namely Mamta and Rani @ Rajni were armed with lathis. Furthermore, in the FIR all the injuries have been assigned to Ram Vilas and Neelesh @ Kalu. As per FIR, three ladies have not caused any injury. It will be pertinent to mention here that even the medical evidence conclusively proves that all the injuries have been caused with one weapon i.e. Incised penetrating weapon. Therefore, all injuries can be caused with the Gupti. Therefore, as per the FIR, three ladies, namely Vimla Devi, Mamta and Rani @ Rajni have not caused any injury. It is to be noted that later Surendra (P.W.2) while appearing in the court reiterated that Mamta, his mother and sister were armed with lathis and later said that younger daughter was armed with a stone. However, Surendra (P.W.2) stated in the court that Ram Vilas was armed with Gandasa, Neelesh @ Kalu was armed with Gupti. Further, he stated that Mamta had caused injury with knife to younger brother Jairam. Therefore, Surendra (P.W.2) in the court has attributed one incised weapon to Mamta. 21. Jairam (P.W.6), another injured stated in the court that Rani @ Rajni was armed with Gupti, Neelesh @ Kalu was armed with Gupti and his mother and younger sister of Neelesh @ Kalu were armed with lathis. Pawan was armed with stone. This witness in the court stated that Neelesh @ Kalu caused injury with Gupti to his father. When he came forward, Rani @ Rajni caused him injury with a Gupti. Jairam in court has not assigned any weapon to Ram Vilas. 22. Hanuman Sahai (P.W.1) in the court stated that Ram Vilas was armed with Pharsa. Neelesh @ Kalu was armed with Gupti, eldest daughter of Ram Vilas was armed with knife, his wife and younger daughter were armed with lathis. 23. Pappu Lal (P.W.13) in the court named Ram Vilas as Ram Ratan and stated that he was armed with Gandasa. He further stated that Neelesh @ Kalu was armed with Gupti and Rani @ Rajni was armed with knife. Mamta was armed with lathi and Pawan was armed with iron rod (Sariya). 24. 23. Pappu Lal (P.W.13) in the court named Ram Vilas as Ram Ratan and stated that he was armed with Gandasa. He further stated that Neelesh @ Kalu was armed with Gupti and Rani @ Rajni was armed with knife. Mamta was armed with lathi and Pawan was armed with iron rod (Sariya). 24. Kailash (P.W.24) in the court stated that Ram Vilas was armed with knife, mother of Neelesh @ Kalu was armed with Gandasa, Neelesh @ Kalu was armed with iron rod and Pawan was armed with knife, Mamta was armed with Gupti. 25. Thus, reading of testimony of all the five eye-witnesses and the FIR regarding weapon with each accused bring following facts have emerged - (i) In the FIR, Ram Vilas and Neelesh @ Kalu were armed with Gupti, whereas, three ladies of the house were armed with blunt weapon. (ii) In the Court Jairam (P.W.6), an injured witness, has not assigned any weapon to Ram Vilas, whereas Surendra (P.W.2) in the court had stated that Ram Vilas was armed with Gandasa. Hanuman Sahai (P.W.1) in the court stated that Ram Vilas was armed with Pharsa. Pappu Lal (P.W.13) in the court stated that Ram Vilas was armed with Gandasa, whereas, Kailash (P.W.24) in the court stated that Ram Vilas was armed with knife, whereas in the FIR, Ram Vilas is assigned Gupti. (iii) So far as Mamta, appellant is concerned, in the FIR she is attributed lathi. In the court Surendra (P.W.2) stated that Mamta was armed with a knife, whereas Jairam (P.W.6) injured witness stated in the court that Mamta was armed with a lathi. Hanuman Sahai (P.W.1) in the court stated that eldest daughter i.e. Mamta was armed with a knife. Pappu Lal (P.W.13) stated in the court that Mamta was armed with a lathi. Kailash (P.W.24) in the court stated that Mamta was armed with a Gupti. (iv) In the FIR, Rani @ Rajni is assigned lathi. In the court Surendra (P.W.2) stated that younger daughter i.e. Rani was armed with a stone. Jairam (P.W.6) assigned knife to Rani @ Rajni. Hanuman Sahai (P.W.1) in the court stated that Rani @ Rajni was armed with a lathi. Pappu Lal (P.W.13) in the court stated that Rani @ Rajni was armed with a knife. Kailash (P.W.24) in the court has not assigned any weapon to Rani @ Rajni. Jairam (P.W.6) assigned knife to Rani @ Rajni. Hanuman Sahai (P.W.1) in the court stated that Rani @ Rajni was armed with a lathi. Pappu Lal (P.W.13) in the court stated that Rani @ Rajni was armed with a knife. Kailash (P.W.24) in the court has not assigned any weapon to Rani @ Rajni. (v) So far Vimla Devi is concerned, witnesses have made contradictory statement regarding weapon assigned to her. In the FIR, it is stated that she was armed with a iron rod; in the court Surendra (P.W.2) stated that she was armed with a lathi. Jairam (P.W.6) in the court stated that Vimla Devi was armed with a lathi. Hanuman Sahai (P.W.1) in the court stated that Vimla Devi was armed with a lathi. Pappu Lal (P.W.13) in the court has assigned (Sariya) iron rod to Vimla Devi. Kailash (P.W.24) in the court had stated that Vimla Devi was armed with a Gandasa. 26. In Bijoy Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar [ 2002 (9) SCC 147 ] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "6. This Court in Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of U.P. held that FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case, is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if known to the informant. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. 7. Sending the copy of the special report to the Magistrate as required under Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the only external check on the working of the police agency, imposed by law which is required to be strictly followed. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. 7. Sending the copy of the special report to the Magistrate as required under Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the only external check on the working of the police agency, imposed by law which is required to be strictly followed. The delay in sending the copy of the FIR may by itself not render the whole of the case of the prosecution as doubtful but shall put the court on guard to find out as to whether the version as stated in the court was the same version as earlier reported in the FIR or was the result of deliberations involving some other persons who were actually not involved in the commission of the crime. Immediate sending of the report mentioned in Section 157 CrPC is the mandate of law. Delay wherever found is required to be explained by the prosecution. If the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawn but failure to explain the delay would require the court to minutely examine the prosecution version for ensuring itself as to whether any innocent person has been implicated in the crime or not. Insisting upon the accused to seek an explanation of the delay is not the requirement of law. (Emphasis supplied). It is always for the prosecution to explain such a delay and if tendered, no adverse inference can be drawn against it. 8. In the instant case, the copy of the report referred to in Section 157 CrPC is shown to have been received by the Magistrate on 27-8-1991. Even though there is a mention in the FIR that its copy was sent through special messenger, yet no date or time of sending the said report is mentioned. The Magistrate, receiving the copy of the report, has also not noted the time of its receipt on 27-8-1991. We are of the opinion that the Magistrate receiving reports under Section 157 CrPC, particularly when it relates to the commission of the heinous crime are required to note not only the date but also the time of the receipt of the copy thereof. Mr. We are of the opinion that the Magistrate receiving reports under Section 157 CrPC, particularly when it relates to the commission of the heinous crime are required to note not only the date but also the time of the receipt of the copy thereof. Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State has pointed out the existence of various circumstances which may perhaps be the cause of delay in sending the copy of the report and its receipt by the Magistrate but surely there is a difference between the "may be"and "must be". The prosecution has apparently failed to explain the delay in sending the copy of the said reprt in terms of Section 157 CrPC to the Magistrate of the area. This aspect has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that many of the accused were innocent and wrongly roped in the case allegedly on account of enmity existing between the complainant and the accused party. There is some substance in such a submission. " 27. The witnesses have also made contradictory statement regarding manner in which the injuries caused by the accused. In view of large scale contradiction made by the witnesses, we will rely upon the statement made in the FIR. As per the FIR, all the three ladies were armed with blunt weapon. In the occurrence, no injury has been caused with the blunt weapon. Even otherwise, we have noted that there is delay in reaching Special Report to Illaqa Magistrate. To us, the three ladies of the house are victim of over implication by the complainant party. Thus, we shall extend benefit of doubt to the accused appellants, namely Vimla Devi, Mamta and Rani @ Rajni. 28. Mr. Vijayant Nirwan, the leanred Amicus Curiae, has drawn our attention to the site plan (Exhibit-P/4) and the evidence of the witnesses qua the fact that neither the house of the accused nor the complainant's house is situated near the place of occurrence, i.e. Jogiyon Ka Mohalla. Down below of the site plan, is Jaton Ka Mohalla. Thus, it has been rightly contended by the learned Amicus Curiae that three to four days before the occurrence, a dispute had taken place between the accused party and complainants. Down below of the site plan, is Jaton Ka Mohalla. Thus, it has been rightly contended by the learned Amicus Curiae that three to four days before the occurrence, a dispute had taken place between the accused party and complainants. He has also drawn our attention to the statement made by Surendra (P.W.2), wherein he stated that "2-4 days ago, over the barren land a fight had taken place between us and the accused as well as a case is also pending between us. I am not aware if except Pappu Lal and Kailash had witnessed the occurrence." 29. Relying upon the statement made by Surendra (P.W.2), regarding dispute over the land and the quarrel which had taken place 2-4 days before the occurrence, and the site plan, it is contended by the learned Amicus Curiae that as per FIR and the statement made by the witnesses in the court when after finishing work they were returning and were going towards their house parties met and faced each other. He further contended that thus, accused were not aware that the complainant party will pass through Jogiyon Ka Mohalla. It is submitted that parties suddenly met each other and came to blows. We find merit in this contention. 30. It has come in evidence that two injured witnesses, Surendra (P.W.2) and Jairam (P.W.6) and their father Ganpat Lal were doing work at the shop of Dipu Khandelwal. The occurrence had taken place in the month of March. A shop normally closes in the late hours of night. Therefore, the accused never knew that at 6:45 PM, the complainant after finishing their work will return to their house. It is probable that the complainant and the accused have met in the street and came to blows and caused injuries to each other. So far Ram Vilas is concerned, he has not received any injury in the occurrence. Had he been present at the spot, like Neelesh @ Kalu, he would have also suffered injuries. Therefore, presence of Ram Vilas at the place of occurrence is not stamped. Whereas, number of injuries received by Neelesh @ Kalu stamp his presence at the scene of occurrence. In the present case, while not explaining the injuries on the person of Neelesh @ Kalu, witnesses have suppressed origina and genesis of the occurrence. 31. Similarly, Neelesh @ Kalu appearing as D.W.1 is also not truthful witness. Whereas, number of injuries received by Neelesh @ Kalu stamp his presence at the scene of occurrence. In the present case, while not explaining the injuries on the person of Neelesh @ Kalu, witnesses have suppressed origina and genesis of the occurrence. 31. Similarly, Neelesh @ Kalu appearing as D.W.1 is also not truthful witness. He has stated that he was returning to his house after purchasing Papad, when he was surrounded by five persons, and in order to save himself he caused injuries with iron rod. As we have noted all injuries on the person of Ganpat Lal, Surendra (P.W.2) and Jairam (P.W.6) are incised wound, they cannot be caused by iron rod (Chhar). Therefore, Neelesh @ Kalu (D.W.1) has also not given truthful account. Had Neelesh @ Kalu not taken a specific stand, we would have extended benefit to the accused for non-explanation of injuries on his person. As noted by us, Neelesh @ Kalu has suffered four injuries on his head out of nine injuries caused to him. Since in the present case, both the eye-witnesses and the accused Neelesh @ Kalu appearing as D.W.1 have not given truthful account, we have been left to reconstruct the case on the basis of probabilities. 32. Thus, it is probable and natural that in the street, Ganpat, Surendra and Jairam met Neelesh @ Kalu and due to pending litigation and quarrel which had taken place 2/4 days ago, seeing each other a fight erupted. Since injuries on the person of Jairam, Surendra and Ganpat Lal have been caused with one weapon, we have no hesitation to hold that same were caused by one accused. Considering Ram Vilas had suffered no injury in the occurrence and witnesses are highly discrepant so far weapon attributed to him in the occurrence is concerned, we shall extend benefit of doubt to Ram Vilas. 33. It is correct that we cannot weigh right of self-defence in golden case. Nine injuries on the person of Neelesh @ Kalu, although out of which four are on head, have not been explained by the accused. There is no other option but to arrive at the conclusion that Neelesh @ Kalu had suffered injuries in the occurrence. 33. It is correct that we cannot weigh right of self-defence in golden case. Nine injuries on the person of Neelesh @ Kalu, although out of which four are on head, have not been explained by the accused. There is no other option but to arrive at the conclusion that Neelesh @ Kalu had suffered injuries in the occurrence. Yet since we have held that the Neelesh @ Kalu, Ganpat Lal the deceased and his two sons, Surendra and Jairam met each other suddenly, to us, it will not be a case of sudden fight falling within the Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, as Neelesh @ Kalu had taken undue advantage and has caused more harm than which was due. Surendra (P.W.2) had suffered one injury, Jairam had also suffered one injury in the occurrence. However, eleven injuries have been caused to Ganpat Lal. Thus, according to us, Neelesh @ Kalu had exceeded his right of self-defence and the case will fall under Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC and thus, Neelesh @ Kalu should be guilty of offence under Section 304-I IPC. 34. As a result of above discussion, we hold the appellant Neelesh @ Kalu guilty of offence under Section 304-I IPC. Thus, we convert the offence qua Neelesh @ Kalu from Section 302/149 IPC to 304-I IPC and set aside the life imprisonment awarded to him and sentence him to ten years' R.I. 35. However, we extend benefit of doubt to Smt. Mamta, Smt. Rani @ Rajni, Smt. Vimla Devi and Ram Vilas and they are acquitted of all the charges.Consequently, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1220/2006 stands allowed and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 807/2007 is disposed of.Appeal No. 1220/2006 allowed/Appeal No. 807/2007 partly allowed. *******