JUDGMENT : Vijay Kumar Vyas, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 27.2.1996 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur, in Sessions Case No.174/1993, whereby appellants were acquitted of the charges u/s 307, 307/149, 326 and 326/149 IPC and convicted for the offences punishable u/s 147, 148, 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149 IPC and were not punished but ordered if each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.3000/- with a surety of the like amount and each of them deposits Rs.1,000/-for expenses of prosecution, they may be given the benefit of probation on condition that they will maintain peace and good conduct during two years. On depositing the amount, Rs.3,000/- were ordered to be paid to Ramjatan @ Mota and Rs.1,000/-were ordered to be paid to Ramratan. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that on 12.8.1993 Ram Kishore Meena (PW-5) submitted a written report (Ex.P-3) at Police Station Mallarnadoongar alleging, inter alia, that on the day at about 1½ O'clock he heard a noise of crying and he rushed to an agricultural field where his brother Ram Ratan was harvesting, he saw there that Ram Kishan, Ram Kalyan, Moji Ram, Shyoji Ram, Smt. Phula W/o Shri Ram Kishan, Smt. Kistoori W/o Shri Ram Kalyan and Ms Lotanti D/o Shri Ram Kishan armed with lathies, Gandasi, Karawari (axe) and Dantli, were giving beatings to Ram Ratan and Mota. Appellant Moji Ram gave blow of an axe on head and right shoulder of Mota. Appellant Ram Kalyan gave blow of axe on left leg of Mota. Appellant Shyoji Ram gave blow of lathi on hand and back of Mota. Smt. Phula W/o Shri Ram Kishan gave blow of sickle (Dantli) on right leg of Mota. Accused Ram Kalyan gave a blow of axe (Karwari) on head of Ram Ratan. Accused Ram Kishan also gave a blow of Karwari (axe) on head of Ram Ratan. Complainant Ram Kishore and Sita Ram intervened. Later on, villagers - Phool Chand and Jhandoo also arrived at the place of occurrence. On this information, a formal FIR No. 142/1993 (Ex.P-4) was registered. During investigation, injured were examined by Medical Officer. Site was inspected by police. Statements u/s 161 Cr. P.C. were recorded. Land record was obtained from the area Patwari. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants. On this information, a formal FIR No. 142/1993 (Ex.P-4) was registered. During investigation, injured were examined by Medical Officer. Site was inspected by police. Statements u/s 161 Cr. P.C. were recorded. Land record was obtained from the area Patwari. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants. Learned trial court charged the appellants for the offences u/s 307, 307/149, 324, 324/149, 323/149, 147 and 148 IPC. Appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents. Appellants-accused were examined u/s 313 Cr. P.C. All of them refuted the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Appellant accused Moji Ram stated, in particular, that when he asked Ram Ratan, Ram Jatan, Ram Kishore, Ram Charan, Babu Lal, Shanker, Ram Bai, Sukhi and Geeta not to cut swallow-wort situated on common boundary wall of agricultural fields of both the parties, then they rebuked him and said that you have damaged the common boundary wall. When accused denied, Ram Jatan gave a blow of axe on him. Ram Ratan beat him with stick. Thereafter, all ran away. When accused cried, Gajanand and Ramhet came there and intervened. In defence, appellant-accused Moji Ram appeared as witness (DW-1) and six documents were exhibited. After hearing both the parties, learned trial court decided the matter vide impugned order dated 27.2.1996 and passed the order of conviction and sentence, as stated above. 3. Learned counsel for the accused appellants submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the genesis of the story in the said incident. Accused appellant Moji Ram also received injuries by sharp-edged weapon. Prosecution did not give any explanation about injury received by the appellant-accused Moji Ram. Learned trial court erred in not extending the right of private defence of a person or property to the accused-appellants. Learned trial court did also not consider the fact that a cross case was registered by the appellants accused party against the victims of the instant case. Police after investigation, submitted charge sheet in that matter too. The present case is of free-fight, where both the parties gave beatings to each other. No independent witness has supported the prosecution story. Findings of the learned trial court are based on surmises and conjectures. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the order passed by the learned trial court. Police after investigation, submitted charge sheet in that matter too. The present case is of free-fight, where both the parties gave beatings to each other. No independent witness has supported the prosecution story. Findings of the learned trial court are based on surmises and conjectures. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the order passed by the learned trial court. He submits that the learned trial court has committed no error in holding the appellants convict. Story of the prosecution is corroborated by medical evidence. Presence of interested and relatives witnesses on the place of occurrence is natural and undisputed. They have substantiated the occurrence by their ocular evidence. Instead of sentencing, the learned trial court has rightly extended the benefit of probation to the accused appellants. No indulgence of whatsoever nature is required by this court in the judgment impugned. 5. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and gone through the whole material available on record. 6. Ram Jatan @ Mota (PW-8) and Ram Ratan (PW-10) are the victims/injured. Ram Kishore (PW-5) is an eye witness. He informed police, whereupon FIR was registered. Siya Ram (PW-6), Jhandoo (PW- 14) and Phool Chand (PW-15) have been examined as eye witnesses. These three witnesses have been declared hostile nevertheless Siya Ram (PW-6) testifies in favour of the prosecution that when he was harvesting in his agricultural field, he heard noise of crying, whereupon he went to the agricultural field of Ram Ratan. Prior to his reaching, accused were beating, holding Gandasi and Lathies. Ram Ratan and Ram Jatan were being beaten. Smt. Phula W/o Shri Ramkishan was holding sickle. All accused were beating. But he does not know today as to which accused beat with what weapon and with whom. Jhandoo (PW-14) and Phool Chand (PW-15) told nothing about the incident thus, no impact of statements given by these two hostile witnesses is found on any of the parties. 7. Shanker (PW-7), who is father of the victims, has stated that he reached the spot after incident was over. Ram Kishore (PW-5) has fully corroborated the story of the prosecution and corroborated the evidence rendered by Ram Jatan @ Mota (PW-8) and Ram Ratan (PW-10). There are no contradictions in the evidence rendered by these witnesses. Dr. Umesh Sharma (PW-9) and Dr. P.C. Gupta (PW-11) have proved the injury reports and x-ray reports. Dr. Ram Kishore (PW-5) has fully corroborated the story of the prosecution and corroborated the evidence rendered by Ram Jatan @ Mota (PW-8) and Ram Ratan (PW-10). There are no contradictions in the evidence rendered by these witnesses. Dr. Umesh Sharma (PW-9) and Dr. P.C. Gupta (PW-11) have proved the injury reports and x-ray reports. Dr. Umesh Sharma (PW-9) has stated that on 12.8.1993 he conducted medical examination of Ram Jatan @ Mota and Ram Ratan and prepared injury reports - Ex.P-4 and Ex. P-5, respectively. Dr. P.C. Gupta (PW-11) has stated that he conducted x-ray of forearm of left hand of Mota and found fracture on ulna bone. X-ray report is Ex. P-8. 8. The learned trial court has considered the aspect of the cross case in its impugned judgment. As per injury report (Ex.D-6) of Moji Ram, only two injuries were reported on the body of appellant Moji Ram and incised wound was found on the left parietal region of head caused by sharp-edged weapon which was not grievous. Another injury is, in fact, not an injury; rather it is a swelling or tenderness found on the left shoulder joint of Moji Ram, which was caused by blunt object. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial court has rightly held that such injuries do not require any explanation from prosecution. The incident has taken place in the agricultural field of complainant party. It is not improbable that the appellants-accused may have initiated the incident. In view of the statements of Moji Ram (DW-1) and the documentary evidence exhibited by the defence, occurrence of incident is not doubtful. Enmity between the parties may lead to some exaggeration, but there is no material available on record whereby probability of non-occurrence of the incident may be construed. 9. Cross FIR No.143/93 (Ex.D-3) was registered on 13.8.1993, one day later then the instant one. Injured in that FIR was only Mojiram, whereas in the instant FIR, injured are two persons i.e. Ramratan and Ramjatan @ Mota. As per injury report (Ex.D-6) of Mojiram, he received only one simple hurt caused by sharp weapon along with swelling on left shoulder, whereas as per injury report (Ex.D-6) of Ramjatan @ Mota, he received 12 injuries, including one grievous and five simple caused by sharp weapon. As per injury report (Ex.D-6) of Mojiram, he received only one simple hurt caused by sharp weapon along with swelling on left shoulder, whereas as per injury report (Ex.D-6) of Ramjatan @ Mota, he received 12 injuries, including one grievous and five simple caused by sharp weapon. As per injury report (Ex.P-7) of Ramratan, he received three simple injuries caused by blunt object. In a situation like this, possibility cannot be ruled out that in the course of scuffle, Mojiram may also have received some injury. But in any case, accused appellants are impeccably proved to be the first assailants and the case is not at all of free-fight between the parties. 10. After going through all the material available on record, I am of the view that the impugned judgment passed by trial court is based on proper appreciation of the evidence and in conformity with the established principles of criminal justice. 11. Hence, the appeal is disallowed and the judgment dated 27.2.1996 passed by the learned trial court is upheld.