JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. The present appeal has been filed against judgment dated 12.02.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2008, vide which, learned Appellate Court has set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused persons by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barsar, in Cr. Case No.74-II-2005 dated 19.11.2008. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on 26.04.2005 at around 6/6.30 P.M. complainant Puran Chand, his wife Nirmala Devi, son Banku Ram and brother of the complainant Banarsi Dass were thrashing their wheat crop with the thrasher of one Mehar Singh at village Jajri, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur. On the completion of said thrashing, Banarsi Dass asked the owner of the thrasher to remove the same and to install the thrasher at some distance. However, accused Om Parkash objected to it and thereafter, an altercation started between Banarsi Dass and accused Om Parkash. Accused Om Parkash went to his house and when Banarsi Dass was about to leave the spot, accused Om Parkash came there with Drat in his hand and he was hurling abuses and he wrongfully restrained Banarsi Dass and inflicted a blow of Drat on the wrist of his left arm. Banku Ram proceeded to save Banarsi Dass from accused Om Parkash, however, accused Om Parkash gave Drat blow on the right hand thumb of said Banku Ram also. In these circumstances, wife of complainant Nirmala Devi and his mother Prabhi Devi tried to save both Banarsi Dass and Banku Ram from the accused Om Parkash. When accused Suman Kumari, Ruhansu Devi and Sarwan Singh came at the place of the occurrence with Danda and started giving beatings to the complainant party by means of said Danda. The complainant party was saved by one Joginder and Shakar Dass from the accused persons. The complainant party sustained injuries on their person due to the beatings given to them by the accused persons and they were taken to CHC Barsar for treatment by local inhabitants from where Medical Officer informed the police of Police Station Barsar about the incident and police entered rapat Ext. PW10/A and proceeded to the hospital. Thereafter, the police recorded statement of complainant Puran Chand under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext. PW1/A and on the basis of the same, FIR Ext. PW13/A was registered against the accused. PW10/A and proceeded to the hospital. Thereafter, the police recorded statement of complainant Puran Chand under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext. PW1/A and on the basis of the same, FIR Ext. PW13/A was registered against the accused. During the course of investigation, the police visited the spot and prepared site plan and also recorded disclosure statement of accused Om Parkash under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, which has been exhibited as Ext. PW9/A. On the basis of this disclosure statement, they recovered Drat Ext. P-7. The police also prepared the sketch of weapon of offence i.e. Drat and also took into possession Danda vide separate recovery memos. They also took into possession the blood stained shirt, pant and underwear Ext.P-1 to P-4 of injured Banarsi Dass. During the investigation, the police moved applications to the Medical Officer, CHC Barsar and got conducted the medical examination of the injured persons and x-rays of some of their were also taken. During medical examination of injured Banarsi Dass and Banku Ram, they were referred to Regional Hospital Hamirpur and from there, they were referred to IGMC Shimla. After obtaining the final opinion from Medical Officer, the police came to the conclusion that on the aforesaid date, time and place all the accused in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the complainant party from proceeding further where they had right to proceed and assaulted them with drat and Danda and voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the complainant party. On these basis, challan for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C. was presented against the accused before the learned trial Court. 3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecuting in all examined 16 witnesses. 4. PW-1 complainant Puran Chand narrated the incident in his deposition and corroborated as was stated by him in the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. In his crossexamination, he denied that he was doing the work of slaughtering the goats and that Banarsi Dass used to prepare ammunition. He also denied the suggestion that due to the explosion of ammunition, Banarsi Dass lost fingers of his hand. He also denied that Banarsi Dass had kept bomb in the grass of accused Sarwan and to this effect there was news clipping also. He deposed that Banarsi Dass had lost his two fingers while he was burning crackers. He also denied the suggestion that due to the explosion of ammunition, Banarsi Dass lost fingers of his hand. He also denied that Banarsi Dass had kept bomb in the grass of accused Sarwan and to this effect there was news clipping also. He deposed that Banarsi Dass had lost his two fingers while he was burning crackers. He admitted that after completing of the thrashing of their crop, they were coming with tractor to thrash the wheat crop of Joginder Singh and that wheat crop of Joginder Singh was stacked on the back side of the cow-shed of accused Om Parkash. He also stated that Joginder Singh was not related to him and denied the suggestion that the land where wheat crop of Joginder was thrashed, belonged to accused Sarwan. He has self stated that the same belonged to Subedar Dhani Ram. He denied the suggestion that accused Om Parkash asked Joginder Singh to move the outlet of the thrasher to other side, so that the wheat husk should not enter into his house. He also denied the suggestion that he is doing the work of 'Kasai’ and attacked accused Om Parkash with drat Ext. P-7. He also denied the suggestion that Banku Ram tried to snatch Drat from him and in this process Banku Ram and Banarsi Dass sustained injuries. He also denied the suggestion that his wife Nirmala Devi and mother Prabhi Devi came with Danda and started giving beatings to accused Om Parkash and the other accused had come to rescue of accused Om Parkash. He admitted that they were having litigations with accused party which was pending before the Panchayat. 5. PW-2 Nirmala Devi, wife of the complainant, deposed that on the fateful day at around 6.30 P.M. he had gone to her house after completing their thrashing, then accused Om Parkash started hurling abuses to Banarsi Dass and thereafter, he rushed to his house and brought Drat with him and inflicted the blow of drat on the hand of Banarsi Dass. She further deposed that when Banku Ram came to rescue Banarsi Dass, accused Om Parkash attacked him also with Drat and thereafter, she and her mother-in-law Prabhi Devi came to the spot and accused Sarwan, Ruhansu and Suman Kumari gave Danda blow to her also. She further deposed that when Banku Ram came to rescue Banarsi Dass, accused Om Parkash attacked him also with Drat and thereafter, she and her mother-in-law Prabhi Devi came to the spot and accused Sarwan, Ruhansu and Suman Kumari gave Danda blow to her also. She has deposed that Joginder Singh and Shankar Dass were present on the spot and they saved them from the accused. She has denied the suggestion that her husband refused to move the outlet of the thrasher or that her husband attacked on Om Parkash with Drat. She also denied the suggestion that Banku Ram and Banarsi Dass sustained injuries in the process while they were snatching Drat from her husband. 6. PW-3 Banarsi Dass has corroborated the story of the prosecution. According to him, accused Om Parkash gave Drat blow on his left hand and thereafter accused Sarwan Singh gave Danda blow on his head and he became unconscious. According to him, he was brought to Barsar hospital from where he was referred to Hamirpur and from there was referred to Shimla and thereafter, he was discharged after about 9-10 days. He has admitted that they were not having cordial relations with the accused persons. He has denied the suggestion that his hand and hand of Banku Ram had been cut while they were snatching Drat from complainant Puran Chand. 7. PW-6 Prabhi Devi, mother of the complainant, has also deposed about the incident and stated that accused Om Parkash was asking not to install thrasher and was also hurling abuses. She also deposed that accused Om Parkash brought Drat and inflicted blow from the same on the hand of Banarsi Dasss and when she tried to rescue Banarsi Dass, then accused Suman and Ruhansu Devi inflicted Danda blow on her head. She has admitted that accused Om Parkash asked Joginder to thrash his wheat at some other place as wheat husk will enter into his house and Joginder agreed to that. 8. PW-7 Banku Ram has stated that on 26.04.2005 at around 6.30 P.M. when they were thrashing their wheat crop and wheat crop of Joginder Singh was to be thrashed, accused Om Parkash came there and started hurling abuses by saying not to thrash wheat crop there. 8. PW-7 Banku Ram has stated that on 26.04.2005 at around 6.30 P.M. when they were thrashing their wheat crop and wheat crop of Joginder Singh was to be thrashed, accused Om Parkash came there and started hurling abuses by saying not to thrash wheat crop there. Thereafter, accused Om Parkash rushed to his house and brought Drat with him and other accused Suman Kumari, Ruhansu Devi and Sarwan Singh also came there. Accused Om Parkash inflicted Drat blow on the hand of his uncle and when he tried to rescue his uncle, accused Om Parkash inflicted Drat blow on his thumb also. He also deposed that thereafter all the accused assaulted them and accused Suman Kumari gave Danda blow on the head of his grand-mother Prabhi Devi. He stated that Joginder Singh and Shankar Dass saved them from the clutches of the accused. He has denied the suggestion that Puran Chand was holding Drat in his hand and that Puran Chand assaulted accused Om Parkash with Drat and when he along Banarsi Dass were stopping him, then in that process they sustained injuries. 9. PW-8 Shankar Dass has deposed that on the fateful day at around 5/6 P.M. he had kept his wheat crop for thrashing on the spot, which fell down when the tractor struck the same. When they were collecting wheat crop, he saw that accused Om Parkash was quarreling with Puran Chand and Banarsi Dass. Thereafter, accused Om Parkash rushed to his house and brought a Drat and gave Drat blow to Banarsi Dass. He has further stated that accused Sarwan Singh came there and inflicted Danda blow to Puran Chand and ladies. He also stated that wife of accused Om Parkash and his mother also came there with Danda and gave beatings to the complainant party. He has further stated that on this, he cried for help. 10. PW-12 Joginder Singh, the other independent witness has depose that on the fateful day they had kept their wheat crop near cow-shed of Sarwan and they were adjusting thrasher there, then their wheat crop had fallen and while he alongwith his father Shankar Dass were collecting the same, there was altercation between accused Om Parkash and complainant Puran Chand. Accused Om Parkash was asking not to install thrasher there and quarrel took place between them. Accused Om Parkash was asking not to install thrasher there and quarrel took place between them. Accused Om Parkash went to his house and brought Drat and inflicted Drat blow on the neck of Banarsi Dass as a result of which his hand was cut. He has also deposed that accused Sarwan Singh came there with Danda and inflicted Danda blow on the head of complainant Accused Suman and Ruhansu were having Danda with them who also gave beatings to the complainant party. He also deposed that Banku Ram also sustained injuries with Drat. 11. PW-9 Ram Krishan and PW-11 Vishan Dutt are the witnesses of recovery in whose presence the police recovered weapons of offence i.e. sticks Ext. P-1 to P-4 and Drat Ext.P-7. PW-9 has deposed that the police interrogated accused in his presence and in the presence of Pradhan and during interrogation, accused Om Parkash disclosed to the police that he had hidden drat Ext.P-7 in the cow-shed of accused Sarwan and police recorded his disclosure statement Ext. PW9/A. On the basis of said disclosure statement, the police recovered Drat. In his cross-examination, he was confronted with his statement recorded by the police to the effect that he has disclosed that accused Om Parkash had disclosed that he had kept Drtat in the cow-shed of Sarwan, wherein it is not so recorded. 12. PW-4 Dr. Lavnish has stated that he medically examined Banku Ram on 26.04.2005 and found multiple lacerated wound over right thumb with restricted movement. The patient was referred to Regional Hospital Hamirpur from where he was referred to IGMC Shimla. He has also mentioned that on the same day he also examined Nirmala Devi and found simple injuries on her person caused with blunt weapon within the duration of less than 24 hours. He has also stated that on the same day he also examined Banarsi Dass, who was suffering from lacerated wound over occipital region and lacerated wound over left writs joint extending from lateral dorsal surface of forearm. Banarsi Dass was referred to Regional Hospital Hamirpur, from where he was referred to IGMC Shimla. 13. PW-5 Dr. Lokendar Sharma, Registrar, Department of Patholoy, IGMC Shimla, has deposed that patient Banarsi Dass was referred to IGMC Shimla from Regional Hospital Hamirpur and he was operated upon ORIF with K-wires and tendon repair was done on 28.04.2005. Banarsi Dass was referred to Regional Hospital Hamirpur, from where he was referred to IGMC Shimla. 13. PW-5 Dr. Lokendar Sharma, Registrar, Department of Patholoy, IGMC Shimla, has deposed that patient Banarsi Dass was referred to IGMC Shimla from Regional Hospital Hamirpur and he was operated upon ORIF with K-wires and tendon repair was done on 28.04.2005. In his cross-examination, he has admitted the suggestion that the injuries were possible with Drat. 14. PW-14 Dr. Rajesh Sood, Registrar, Department of Ortho, IGMC, Shimla, has deposed that on 27.04.2005 Banku Ram was admitted in the casualty under Ortho in IGMC Shimla and was found to have cut injury over right thumb alongwith other injuries. The patient was operated with tailetting and K-Wire fixation and extension expansion repair was done on 28.04.2005. 15. Investigating Officer of the case S.L.Sharma has appeared as PW-14. He has stated that on the spot, on the identification of complainant he prepared site plan and has also recorded the statements of the witnesses. He had also taken into possession the clothes of Banarsi Dass and he had handed over the case file for further investigation to ASI Parkash Chand. 16. Investigating Officer Parkash Chand PW-16 conducted the remaining investigation and he has stated that he recorded the statement of Puran Chand and sent the same through HHC Chatter Singh to Police Station for registration of the case and on the basis of which FIR was registered. He also recorded the statement of accused Om Parkash Ext. PW9/A in the presence of witness Vishan Dutt and Ram Krishan and that accused Om Parkash got recovered Drat Ext. P-7. 17. In defence, the accused examined two witnesses. DW-1 H.C. Baldev Raj has sated that no rapat has been recorded at the instance of the accused. DW-2 Suresh Kumar has stated that he knows the parties and on 26th of the month which he does not remember in the year 2005, he visited the house of Chhonki and Om Parkash and that nothing had happened in his presence. 18. DW-2 Suresh Kumar has stated that he knows the parties and on 26th of the month which he does not remember in the year 2005, he visited the house of Chhonki and Om Parkash and that nothing had happened in his presence. 18. On the basis of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and the material placed on record by the prosecution, learned trial Court concluded that it was duly established on record that accused Om Parkash assaulted injured Banarsi Dass and Banku Ram with drat, whereas the other accused assaulted injured Puran Chand, Nirmala Devi, Prabhi Devi as well as injured Banarsi Dass with. Therefore, according to learned trial Court, offence under Section 326 I.P.C. was committed by accused Om Prakash. It further held that there was no actual participation of other accused for the commission of offence under Section 326 I.P.C. except accused Om Parkash. It further held that all the accused in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained complainant party and caused simple hurt to them by means of Danda, hence the offence under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. was made out against all the accused persons, though offence under Section 326 I.P.C. was made out only against accused Om Parkash. The learned trial Court convicted accused Om Parkash for the commission of offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. and he was also convicted for the offences under Sections 341, 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Accused Sarwan Singh, Suman Kumari and Ruhansu were convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 19. Feeling aggrieved by the said conviction and imposition of sentence by the learned trial Court, the accused persons preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 12.02.2009 accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused persons and acquitted of the charges framed against them. 20. Learned Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the case as set-forth by the prosecution made it clear that after the wheat of Puran Chand had been thrashed, then they wanted to thrash the wheat of Joginder. 20. Learned Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the case as set-forth by the prosecution made it clear that after the wheat of Puran Chand had been thrashed, then they wanted to thrash the wheat of Joginder. For this purpose, the thrasher was placed by the side of house of the accused Om Parkash, who objected to the same because the husk of the wheat would enter the house, which was detrimental to human life as well as to the property. As the complainant party was not agreeable to remove the thrasher to a different place, a quarrel took place between the parties. In the said quarrel, injuries had been caused to PWs Banku Ram, Nirmala Devi, Puran Chand, Banarsi Dass and Prabhi Devi and injuries had also been caused to the accused persons as per the copies of Medico Legal Certificates Ext. D1 to Ext.D4. On these basis, learned Appellate Court concluded that the apple of discord between the parties was the location where the thrasher was placed for thrashing the wheat of Joginder by the complainant party. It was apparent that it was the complainant party, who gave rise to the quarrel and, therefore, it cannot be said that the accused persons were in fact the aggressors. It further held that the wheat husk is detrimental to human life and it can cause serious problems. Therefore, if the complainant party was adamant in thrashing the wheat of Joginder in close vicinity to the house of accused Om Parkash, then they were obviously endangering the human life as well as there was a likelihood of danger being caused to the property, because the dust would settle inside the house. In such situation, aggressor would be the complainant party and the accused party would be having right of private defence of person as well as property. Therefore, on these basis, learned Appellate Court accepted the appeal and judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused by the learned trial Court was set aside. 21. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, the State has filed the present appeal. 22. Mr. Therefore, on these basis, learned Appellate Court accepted the appeal and judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused by the learned trial Court was set aside. 21. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, the State has filed the present appeal. 22. Mr. V.S. Chauhnan, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned Appellate Court has committed grave illegality by ignoring the cogent and trustworthy statements of the injured witnesses i.e. PW-1 Puran Chand, PW-2 Nirmala Devi, PW-3 Banarsi Dass, PW-6 Prabhi Devi and PW-7 Banku Ram. According to him, the said witnesses had fully corroborated the prosecution storey and the statements of the injured persons were fully corroborated by the statements of the eye witnesses i.e. PW-8 Shankar Dass and PW-12 Joginder Singh. However, ignoring the said statements, the learned Appellate Court has set aside the judgment of conviction without any reason as to why the version of the said prosecution witnesses was being disbelieved. He has further argued that the learned Appellate court has also over looked and ignored both the statements of the medical experts as well as the medical evidence produced on record by the prosecution. According to Mr. Chauhan, the MLCs clearly prove that the injured had suffered injuries which had resulted from the quarrel which took place between the complainant party and the accused party and which injuries were caused by Drat blows and Danda blows inflicted upon the complainant party by the accused party. All these aspects of the matter had been minutely gone into by the learned trial Court which had correctly returned the findings of guilt against the accused. However, the said judgment has been set aside by the learned Appellate Court on erroneous findings which are totally contrary to the record. Therefore, on these basis, it was contended on behalf of the appellant/State that the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court was bad and the same was liable to be set aside. 23. Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that the learned Appellate Court has rightly set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court because the judgment of conviction was not based on the material produced on record by the prosecution. 23. Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that the learned Appellate Court has rightly set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court because the judgment of conviction was not based on the material produced on record by the prosecution. According to him, the prosecution had not been able to bring home the guilt of the accused and it had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar argued that the learned trial court had erred in coming to the conclusion that it was the accused party which was the aggressor, whereas the facts on record clearly indicate that the aggressors were the complainant party and the accused had rather acted in self defence. He has further argued that the learned Appellate Court had rightly set aside the judgment of conviction. According to him, the respondents are innocent and had the learned Appellate Court not set aside the judgment of conviction then it would have been travesty of justice that the innocent persons would have been convicted for offence (s) not committed by them. Accordingly, he submitted that there was no merit in the appeal and the same be dismissed. 24. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records of the case. 25. In our considered view, in the present case, it is not a disputed fact that there is animosity and enmity between the complainant party and the accused party. Even according to the complainant party, the bone of contention was the location where the thrasher was placed for thrashing wheat of Joginder by the complainant party. In other words, the origin of the clash commenced from the act of the complainant party of placing thrasher close to the house of Om Parkash, who objected the same on the ground that the dust arising out of the same would settle in his house. We have already taken note of the statements made by the prosecution witnesses including those of the injured persons and the eye witnesses. PW-1 Puran Chand though in his cross-examination has denied that he had outraged the modesty of accused Suman but he has admitted that accused Om Parkash has filed an application regarding same in the Panchayat against the complainant. According to him, the matter stood compromised and he denied that he had begged pardon on the said issue. PW-1 Puran Chand though in his cross-examination has denied that he had outraged the modesty of accused Suman but he has admitted that accused Om Parkash has filed an application regarding same in the Panchayat against the complainant. According to him, the matter stood compromised and he denied that he had begged pardon on the said issue. He has also admitted in his crossexamination that there are land disputes going on between the complainant party and the accused party. Similarly, it is also borne out from the record that the quarrel started by the act of the complainant of placing thrasher in close vicinity to the house of accused Om Parkash which was objected by him. Similarly, PW-2 Nirmala Devi, who is a witness to Farad Ext. PW2/A, has stated that accused Om Prakash got the same recovered from the Taldi of his house, whereas a perusal of the said Farad will demonstrate that it is mentioned therein that the same was recovered from the Taldi of the cow-shed of accused Om Parkash. Disclosure statement of accused Om Paraksh is Ext. PW9/A, which has been witnessed by Vishan Dutt and Ram Krishan. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had got it reported to the police that accused Om Parkash disclosed that he had kept Drat in the Taldi of gow-shala of Sarwan. He has been confronted with his statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which it was mentioned that accused Om Parkash has disclosed that he had hidden Drat in the Taldi of his gow-shala. 26. In our considered view, there are major contradictions in the statements of PW- 2 Nirmala Devi, who is a part of the complainant party and PW-9 Ram Krishan, who is one of the witnesses to the disclosure statement, on the basis of which, the alleged weapon of offence was discovered. 27. Even otherwise, it is settled principle of law that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. This is provided in Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Section 26 of the said Act further lays that no confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, shall be proved as against such person unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. This is provided in Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Section 26 of the said Act further lays that no confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, shall be proved as against such person unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 of the said Act provides how much of an information received from accused may be proved. 28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mehboob Ali & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 9 J.T. 512 , has held as under:- “[13] For application of section 27 of Evidence Act, admissible portion of confessional statement has to be found as to a fact which were the immediate cause of the discovery, only that would be part of legal evidence and not the rest. In a statement if something new is discovered or recovered from the accused which was not in the knowledge of the Police before disclosure statement of the accused is recorded, is admissible in the evidence. [14] Section 27 of Evidence Act refers when any "fact" is deposed. Fact has been defined in section 3 of the Act. Same is quoted below : "Fact" means and includes' (1) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being by the senses; (2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious. Illustrations: (a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact. (b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact. (c) That a man said certain words, is a fact. (d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact. (e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact. "Relevant". "One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts." [16] This Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, 2005 11 SCC 600 has considered the question of discovery of a fact referred to in section 27. This Court has considered plethora of decisions and explained the decision in Pulukuri Kottaya & Ors. V. Emperor, 1947 AIR (PC) 67 and held thus : "125. We are of the view that Kottaya case, 1947 AIR (PC) 67 is an authority for the proposition that "discovery of fact" cannot be equated to the object produced or found. It is more than that. The discovery of fact arises by reason of the fact that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a particular place. 126. We now turn our attention to the precedents of this Court which followed the track of Kottaya case. The ratio of the decision in Kottaya case reflected in the underlined passage extracted was highlighted in several decisions of this Court. 127. The crux of the ratio in Kottaya case was explained by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Damu. Thomas J. observed that: (SCC p. 283, para 35) "The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the "fact discovered" envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect." In Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra, 1976 1 SCC 828 , Sarkaria, J. while clarifying that the expression "fact discovered" in Section 27 is not restricted to a physical or material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and that it does include a mental fact, explained the meaning by giving the gist of what was laid down in Pulukuri Kottaya case . The learned Judge, speaking for the Bench observed thus: (SCC p. 832, para 13) "Now it is fairly settled that the expression "fact discovered" includes not only the physical object produced, but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this (see Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor ; Udai Bhan v. State of U. P., 1962 Supp2 SCR 830)." [17] In State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde & Ors., 2000 AIR (SC) 1691 the statement made by the accused that the dead body of the child was carried up to a particular spot and a broken glass piece recovered from the spot was found to be part of the tail lamp of the motorcycle of co-accused alleged to be used for the said purpose. The statement leading to the discovery of a fact that accused had carried dead body by a particular motorcycle up to the said spot would be admissible in evidence. This Court has laid down thus : "36. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it becomes a reliable information. Hence the legislature permitted such information to be used as evidence by restricting the admissible portion to the minimum. It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact as envisaged in the section. The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, 1947 AIR (PC) 67 is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the "fact discovered" envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect. 37. No doubt, the information permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of the information which "distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered". But the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. 37. No doubt, the information permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of the information which "distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered". But the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. The extent of information admitted should be consistent with understandability. In this case, the fact discovered by PW 44 is that A-3 Mukinda Thorat had carried the dead body of Dipak to the spot on the motorcycle. 38. How did the particular information led to the discovery of the fact? No doubt, recovery of dead body of Dipak from the same canal was antecedent to the information which PW 44 obtained. If nothing more was recovered pursuant to and subsequent to obtaining the information from the accused, there would not have been any discovery of any fact at all. But when the broken glass piece was recovered from that spot and that piece was found to be part of the tail lamp of the motorcycle of A-2 Guruji, it can safely be held that the Investigating Officer discovered the fact that A-2 Guruji had carried the dead body on that particular motorcycle up to the spot. 39. In view of the said discovery of the fact, we are inclined to hold that the information supplied by A-2 Guruji that the dead body of Dipak was carried on the motorcycle up to the particular spot is admissible in evidence. That information, therefore, proves the prosecution case to the abovementioned extent." [18] In Ismail v. Emperor, 1946 AIR (Sind) 43 it was held that where as a result of information given by the accused another co-accused was found by the police the statement by the accused made to the Police as to the whereabouts of the co-accused was held to be admissible under section 27 as evidence against the accused. [19] In Subedar & Ors. v. King-Emperor, 1924 AIR (All) 207 it was held that a statement made by the accused implicating himself and others cannot be called "first information report". However it was held that though it could not be treated as first information report but could be used as information furnished under section 27 of Evidence Act. It was held thus : "The approver and one of the appellants were arrested practically red- handed. However it was held that though it could not be treated as first information report but could be used as information furnished under section 27 of Evidence Act. It was held thus : "The approver and one of the appellants were arrested practically red- handed. They made statements to the officer who arrested them involving admissions of guilt. They went further and gave a list of the other members of the gang. Thereupon the officer made a report in writing to his superior, containing the information which he had received, including the names of those other persons received from the two men arrested. Somehow or other, the learned Judge has described this police report, which is merely the report of a confession, as "the first information report." Now the first information report is a well known technical description of a report under section 154, Criminal Procedure Code, giving first information of a cognizable crime. This is usually made by the complainant, or by some one on his behalf. The language is inapplicable to a statement made by the accused. The novelty of a statement by an accused person being called the first information report was to me so strange, that when counsel for the appellants addressed the argument to me attacking the Judge's use of the first information report, I took no notice of the argument. The learned Judge realized that he was dealing with a confession, but he momentarily failed to appreciate that the document itself was inadmissible, and that the only way in which the information relied upon could be used was by section 27. That is to say, with regard to the other accused, the officer giving evidence might say : "I arrested them in consequence of information received from Narain and Thakuri. When I arrested them they made a statement to me which caused me to arrest these people". The use which can legitimately be made of such information is merely this, that when direct evidence is given against the accused at the trial and there was evidence against the accused, it is open to the defence to check such evidence by asking whether the name of a particular accused was mentioned or not at the time?" 29. The use which can legitimately be made of such information is merely this, that when direct evidence is given against the accused at the trial and there was evidence against the accused, it is open to the defence to check such evidence by asking whether the name of a particular accused was mentioned or not at the time?" 29. Here is a case where there are major discrepancies with regard to the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence in the statements of PW-2 Nirmala Devi and PW-9 Ram Krishan, which casts a cloud on the trustworthiness and truthfulness on the depositions of said witnesses. Therefore, it cannot be said that the recovery of weapon of offence i.e. Drat has been proved in accordance with law. Therefore, in the present case, there is a major break in the chain of events as has been portraited by the prosecution linking the accused with the alleged offence. The case which has been put up by the defence is that the complainant party was trying to install thrasher behind the back of the cow-shed of the accused, which would have cause inconvenience to the accused and when the accused objected to the said act of the complainant, the complainant took up quarrel with the accused. As per the accused party, it is not they who have given beatings to the complainant party but to the contrary, they have been beaten up by the complainant party. PW-12 Jogidner Singh whose wheat was allegedly to be thrashed now has also stated in his deposition that he saw quarrel between the complainant party and the accused party. 30. Injuries have been sustained by the complainant party as well as by the accused party. The prosecution has not been able to establish by way of testimony of any independent reliable witness that in fact it was the accused party which was the aggressor and the injuries which have been sustained by the complainants are a direct result of that aggression and the same have not been sustained by the complainant party in the course of preventing Puran Chand from hitting Om Parkash with the Drat. Here it is relevant to refer to the statement of PW- 6 Prabhi Devi. Here it is relevant to refer to the statement of PW- 6 Prabhi Devi. She has stated in her cross-examination as under:- “PURAN KE HATH ME DRAT THA AUR OM PARKASH KO MARNE LAGA IS PER BANARSI DASS VA BANKU RAM PURAN KO ROKNE LAGA TO US VAJAH SE BANARSI KO CHOTEIN AAIE.” This deposition of PW-6, who happens to be the mother of complainant Puran Chand creates doubts over the credibility of the story of the prosecution that the injuries which have been sustained by the complainant party were actually inflicted upon them by the accused party. In our considered view, these factors create doubt in the mind of this Court with regard to the credibility of the story of the prosecution. All this becomes very important and relevant keeping in view the fact that the complainant and the accused are neighbours and admittedly there is a land dispute going on between the two. Further, the story of the prosecution has not been corroborated by a reliable witness. This Court is not oblivious to the facts that it is not necessary that in each and every case the story of the prosecution can be believed only if it is substantiated by independent witnesses but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the statements of the prosecution witnesses do not inspire any confidence. Further, a perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court will demonstrate that the said Court has also taken all these facts into consideration and thereafter, it has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. 31. According to us also, the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of the accused. It has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused are guilty of the offences alleged against them. Therefore, according to us, there is neither any infirmity or perversity in the findings which have been returned by the learned Appellate Court on the basis of the appreciation of material placed before it by the prosecution. Therefore, we uphold the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court and dismiss the appeal being without merit. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.