Hon'ble Pratyush Kumar,J. The instant appeal filed on behalf of the accused appellants is directed against judgment and orders dated 21st October, 1982 passed by Sri S.K. Agnihotri, the then 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in S.T. No. 64 of 1982 (State Vs. Basdev and four others) whereby the appellant nos. 1 and 2 were convicted under sections 148, 323/149 and 324/149 IPC and appellant nos. 3 to 5 were convicted under sections 147, 323/149 and 324/149 IPC. First two appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, one year and two years, respectively. Rest of the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year, one year and two years respectively. Heard Sri S.P. Giri learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sushil Kumar, learned A.G.A. For the State-respondent. The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarized as under: That on 16th September, 1979 at 6.30 p.m. Hari Krishna gave a written report at P.S. Iglas stating therein that on that day at 4.30 p.m. his cousin was going to bring Jaggery (gur). He was ambushed by Kesri, Ghure Lal, Ram Charan, Basdeo and Dal Chandra, who were armed with lathi, farsa and ballam. He was abused and beaten. When he and his younger brother Ram Narayan intervened they were also beaten. The assailants bore enmity with him on account of partition. At the alarm raised by them, co-villagers Kalyan Singh, Fauran Singh and others reached there and saved them. At this check FIR was scribed, case crime no. 237 of 1979 under sections 147, 148, 323 IPC was registered, investigated and charge sheet was submitted. All the five appellants stood for trial before the Court of Session, where they were charged, tried, convicted and sentenced as above. Feeling aggrieved the instant appeal has been filed. During the pendency of the appeal appellants Basdev, Kesari and Ghure have died. Their appeals stood abated. On behalf of surviving appellant no.4 Ram Chandra and appellant no.5 Dal Chandra learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and orders are against the weight of material on record and law. Feeling aggrieved the instant appeal has been filed. During the pendency of the appeal appellants Basdev, Kesari and Ghure have died. Their appeals stood abated. On behalf of surviving appellant no.4 Ram Chandra and appellant no.5 Dal Chandra learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and orders are against the weight of material on record and law. He further submits that there was a cross version of the occurrence and the learned trial Judge while ignoring the fact that occurrence took place in front of the house of the deceased appellant Basdeo has disbelieved the version advanced on behalf of the appellants and erroneously convicted the appellants. The prosecution failed to prove charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence has not been properly appreciated. The impugned judgment and orders deserve to be set aside. On behalf of the State these arguments have been repelled and it has been submitted that the learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence. It has been further submitted that finding recorded by the learned trial Judge are well substantiated from the record, cogent reasons have been given in support thereof. The appeal has no substance and it deserves to be dismissed. Before entering into the merits the arguments advanced before me I would like to place on record the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial court. On behalf of the prosecution in the documentary evidence besides other papers, written report Ext. Ka-1, check FIR Ext. Ka-5, recovery memo of clothes of Ram Narayan Ex.Ka-2, Injury report of Ramesh Chandra Ex. Ka-7, Injury report of Hari Kishan Ext. Ka-8, Injury report of Ram Narayan Ext.Ka-9, X-ray report of Ram Narayan, Site plan with index Ex. Ka-3 were filed and in the oral evidence seven witnesses were examined. Out of these four are witnesses of fact and rest are formal witnesses. Ramesh P.W.1 He is the injured and gave eye witness account of the occurrence. He has fully supported the prosecution version. Hari Krishna P.W.2 He is the first informant. He has proved written report Ext. Ka-1. He is also an injured. He has supported the prosecution version. Ram Narayan P.W.3 He is also an injured witness. He has proved memo of taking blood stained clothes Ext. Ka-2 and supported the prosecution version. Fauran Singh P.W.4 He is an independent witness. He has fully supported the prosecution version. He has proved written report Ext. Ka-1. He is also an injured. He has supported the prosecution version. Ram Narayan P.W.3 He is also an injured witness. He has proved memo of taking blood stained clothes Ext. Ka-2 and supported the prosecution version. Fauran Singh P.W.4 He is an independent witness. He has fully supported the prosecution version. Before re-examining and reassessing the probative force of the testimonies of the eye witnesses it would be gainful to reproduce here the injuries sustained by the injured persons and proved by Dr. H.A. Khan P.W.7 who had medically examined the injured Ramesh Chandra and Hari Krishna. They were medically examined on 17th September, 1979 in the forenoon and on 16th September, 1979 at 6.30 p.m. injured Ram Narayan was medically examined. The doctor has proved the injury reports prepared by him at the time of medical examinations. These injury reports are Exts. Ka-7 to Ka-9. The details of the injuries sustained by the injured persons are giving as below: Injuries on the person of Ramesh Chandra: 1. Abrasion 1 cm. x ½ cm. on the right side of the chest, 9 cm. below the right nipple vide Ext. Ka-7. Injuries on the person of Hari Kishan: 1. Abrasion 5 cm. x 4 cm. on the left side of the back and chest above the right spine and 5 cm. below the collar bone. 2. Abrasion 1-1/2 cm. x ¾ cm at the root of the middle finger of the right hand on the back. 3. Abrasion 1 cm. x ¼ cm on the middle finger of the right hand. 4. Abrasion ¼ cm. x ¼ cm on the right finger of the left hand on the back of the first joint. 5. Contusion with traumatic swelling 5 cm x 2 cm on the fourth metacarpal bone of the left hand on the back the joint of finger abrasion 2 cm x cm. above ½ cm on the back of the left forearm, 2 cm. above the wrist joint vide Ext. Ka-8. Injuries on the person of Ram Narain: 1. Incised wound 1 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep on the right side of the forehead, 2 cm above the right eyebrow. 2. Contusion with traumatic swelling on the eyelid of the right eye and also 2 cm below the lower eyelid. 3. above the wrist joint vide Ext. Ka-8. Injuries on the person of Ram Narain: 1. Incised wound 1 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep on the right side of the forehead, 2 cm above the right eyebrow. 2. Contusion with traumatic swelling on the eyelid of the right eye and also 2 cm below the lower eyelid. 3. Traumatic swelling 1 cm x 1 cm on the right side of the head and 10 cm above the right ear. No visible mark of injury was found at this place and hence x-ray was advised. 4. Abrasion 8 cm x 1 cm on the left hand on the outer aspect, 13 cm above the left elbow. 5. Traumatic swelling in an area of 13 cm x 13 cm at the joint of the left elbow above, on the lower portion of the left arm and on the upper side of the left forearm 5 cm above the left elbow. The swelling was accompanied by an abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm x-ray examination was advised. 6. Traumatic swelling 10 cm x 7 cm on the forearm on the back and lower aspect of it. The swelling had extended upto the wrist joint and was also accompanied by a contusion with abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm x-ray examination was advised. 7. Traumatic swelling 4 cm x 2 cm on the right shoulder 2 cm below the joint of the collar bone and on the back of it. The case of the defence before the trial court was of denial. According to them injured Ramesh wanted to construct a nali in the land of Basdev and according to the appellants when protested he and his family men had beaten them. The appellants in their statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.c. had denied the facts stated by the prosecution witnesses. Appellant Basdev since deceased had also stated that he had lodged an FIR against the complainant's party under section 307 IPC. In order to prepare false defence the present FIR was lodged against him and the other accused persons. In the defence on behalf of the appellant statement of Fauran Singh recorded in S.T. No. 784/82 (Ram Prasad Vs. Basdev and others), copy of complaint case no. 1442 of 1979 Ram Prasad Vs. In order to prepare false defence the present FIR was lodged against him and the other accused persons. In the defence on behalf of the appellant statement of Fauran Singh recorded in S.T. No. 784/82 (Ram Prasad Vs. Basdev and others), copy of complaint case no. 1442 of 1979 Ram Prasad Vs. Basdev and others, certified copy of the judgment given in the said complaint case whereby Basdev and other persons were acquitted and, copy of will executed by Devi Singh were filed. The learned trial Judge in absence of any evidence for defence has rejected the defence case that as peshbandi false case was lodged against the present appellants. He believed the eye witness account and held the appellants guilty. Cross version of the occurrence has not been denied by the prosecution witnesses. The learned trial Judge in absence of any evidence adduced by the deceased appellant no.1 Basdeo did not extent benefit of doubt on the basis of plea that there was another version of the occurrence. Before proceeding further it has to be kept in mind that when there is other version of the occurrence two-three points are very material to decide whether prosecution could prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. These material points may be indicated as below:- (i) Obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries of the accused. (ii) Who is aggressor? (iii) Standard of proof. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Gurbux Singh and others, 1996 SCC (Crl) 88 has made very illuminating observation in reference to plea of self defence. Much assistance may be gained to decide the present controversy from the said observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court. For the sake of ready reference it is quoted as below: "It is well settled that when the accused set up a plea of self-defence, they need not prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt and within the parameters under Section 103, if by preponderance of probabilities, the plea taken by them becomes plausible then the same should be accepted or at least, a benefit of doubt arises. In the instant case, the prosecution failed to explain the injuries of the accused persons. It was held that the accused were entitled to the right of self defence." The first point to be considered in this reference is that who is the aggressor. In the instant case, the prosecution failed to explain the injuries of the accused persons. It was held that the accused were entitled to the right of self defence." The first point to be considered in this reference is that who is the aggressor. Place of occurrence has been shown in the site plan Ext. Ka-3. It is marked by letter 'E'. It is right in front of the house of deceased appellant Basdev. When the place of occurrence is in front of the house of the deceased appellant Basdev, naturally inference may be drawn that when the occurrence took place he was at the door of his house which makes it necessary that the injured had to come there. This prima facie is sufficient to show that it was the complainant's side who had gone in front of the door of the one of the appellant. Merely acquittal in the cross case is not determinative that the accused of the cross case were not aggressor because as the Supreme Court has observed that accused need not prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt. He had only to show by preponderance of probabilities that his plea of self defence is plausible. It is well settled that burden is on the prosecution to prove its case and the law does not cast any burden on the accused except when the accused invokes any of the exceptions to criminal liability covered by section 105 of the Evidence Act. The defence is permitted to take up a plea during the cross examination or in the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. If the defence succeeds in creating a reasonable belief that circumstance absolving him from criminal liability may have existed. The accused becomes entitled to get benefit of doubt. The burden so placed on defence is lower then the burden placed on the prosecution. It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction that the question of shifting the onus upon the defence will arise. I am fortified in my view by the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in the case of Sewal Das Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1974 SC 778 . The learned trial Judge has misdirected himself on account of the acquittal in cross case because quantum of proof for prosecution and defence is different. I am fortified in my view by the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in the case of Sewal Das Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1974 SC 778 . The learned trial Judge has misdirected himself on account of the acquittal in cross case because quantum of proof for prosecution and defence is different. I don't think that the learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence. It is an important fact that occurrence took place in front of the house of the co-accused which shows that the complainant's side could have been aggressor. Now the second question to be considered is that whether on the appellants' side any one had received injuries. The prosecution has not cared to admit the fact that accused side also sustained injuries. In this reference I find that Ramesh P.W.1 in his examination in chief has categorically stated that marpeet took place on both the sides but he pleaded ignorance, on the point who on the other side who had sustained injuries, on the ground he became unconscious. He declined the suggestion that he and his companions had beaten Basdev and others. Hari Krishna P.W.2 admitted the reason of dispute. According to him he and other persons reached at the spot unarmed but after snatching lathi from accused persons they defended themselves whereby accused persons sustained injuries. This is a clear admission that in the occurrence the appellants' side also sustained injuries. Only it is claimed to have been caused in self defence. Though he denied the suggestion they had caused injuries to Basdev, Kesri, Ghure Lal and Smt. Genda by lathi, ballam, farsa and gandsa. Ram Narayan P.W.3 admits that on the report of Basdev a cross case was pending against him Ramesh, Ram Narayan and four others. Though of course he denied the suggestion that they had beaten Basdev, Kesri, Ghure Lal and Smt. Genda. Fauran Singh P.W.4 was not present when the incident started. He reached there after hearing the alarm. The learned trial Judge has held him to be an independent witness but from his replies and the certified copy of his earlier statement it transpires that he is inimical to the side of appellants. He is not speaking the truth this can be gathered from the fact that according to him he had not seen any injury on the person of the appellants. He is not speaking the truth this can be gathered from the fact that according to him he had not seen any injury on the person of the appellants. In the light of the facts noticed above now I re-examine and re-assess the evidenciary value of the testimonies of eye witnesses. Since Hari Krishna P.W.2 has categorically admitted that appellants' side also sustained injuries, on account of enmity and evasive answers I am not inclined to place reliance on the statement of Fauran Singh P.W.4. Now remain evidence of three injured persons who were accused in the cross case. Marpeet by both the sides is admitted. Place of occurrence indicates that it was the complainant's side who had gone to the place of occurrence which is in front of the house of Basdev, therefore, preponderance of probabilities is that the complainant's side was aggressor. The statements of the injured witnesses for this reason cannot be accepted that it was the appellants' side who started the quarrel and had beaten them. It is impossible that five armed persons would allow their prospective victims to snatch their lathi and permit them to beat them. Thus probability is that the complainant's side had gone in front of the house of Basdev well armed and injuries inflicted by the appellants' side may be result of self defence. In view of above I do not think that the prosecution could prove charges against the present appellants beyond doubt. The appellants are entitled to be acquitted after giving them benefit of doubt. Resultantly appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and orders dated 21st October, 1982 as also conviction and sentences of the surviving appellants Ram Charan and Dal Chand are set aside. Both the appellants are acquitted from the charges under sections 147, 323/149, 324/149 IPC. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their personal bonds and surety bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged. Office is directed to certify this order to the court concerned forthwith for compliance and to send back the lower court record.