JUDGMENT : Rajiv Joshi, J. 1. Heard Sri Brijesh Sahai learned counsel assisted by Sri Bhavya Sahai learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.11.1983 passed by I-Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 486 of 1979 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 324/149 IPC. The appellant No. 1 and 2 have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 148 IPC and the appellant No.3 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence under Section 147 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the incident took place on 29.9.1979 at 8.00 a.m. for which first information report was lodged on the same day at 12.00 p.m. at police station Baghpat, district Meerut in which three persons namely the appellants were named as accused persons who had committed the alleged offence. After lodging of the first information report,investigation was done, which resulted in filing of charge sheet by the concerned Investigating Officer and as the appellants, who were three in number, pleaded not guilty, they were put to trial. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that as per prosecution version, as mentioned in the F.I.R., when the first informant had gone with his father to their agricultural holdings for harvesting Mungi, the appellants alongwith 3-4 other persons assaulted the father of the first informant and it was contended that the deceased was assaulted by Ballam, Bhala and Lathi and the appellants ran away from the place of assault. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that Rohtas is said to have been armed with Ballam, Sukhpal is said to have been armed with Bhala and Raju @ Raj Kumar is said to have been armed with Lathi, for which first information report was lodged after four hours of the alleged incident without there is being any reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging the same. It is next contended that the motive which has been spelled out by the prosecution for commission of the alleged offence is land dispute between the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that for the same incident, first information report was also lodged by the appellant No.3 which was promptly done and the injury sustained by the appellant Sukhpal was also examined which proves that it was a cross case between the parties for which first information report was lodged from both the sides, in which investigation was done by the same investigating officer and even the medical officer who conducted the medical examination of the injured witness-P.W.-2 as well as appellant Sukhpal was the same. It is contended that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries which has been sustained by the appellant No.2 Sukhpal and has tried to camouflage the same right from the beginning till the very end although, right to self defence was pleaded from the side of the appellant as it was was the appellants who had gone to cut the Mungi crop and not the first informant and his father. It is next contended that in the present case, as many as eight prosecution witnesses were examined namely Mahendra Singh-first informant P.W.-1 who is an eye witness and also son of the deceased Sriram, P.W.-2 Balbir injured witness, P.W.-3Rajbir Singh who is said to be a chance witness who happened to be present ,at the time and place of occurrence and is said to have gone to attend the nature's call, P.W.-4 Dr. A.K. Agrawal who conducted the post mortem, P.W.-5 Dr. Raj Kumar who examined the injuries of the injured P.W.-2, P.W.-6 Constable B.D. Sharma who took the body for post mortem, P.W.-7 the investigating officer Roop Chand Verma and P.W.-8 Head Constable Raghubir Singh, who was working as Head Moharrir. One defence witness Dr. Rajkumar was also examined who was also examined as P.W.-5. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to cross examination of P.W.-1 at page-38 of paperbook and has referred to paragraph-32 and has argued that the said witness has admitted about lodging of the first information report at the behest of the appellants for the same incident for which present proceedings have been drawn against the appellants. It is argued that the motive of assault was with regard to harvesting of Mungi crop, therefore, it was not a free fight between the parties who was inter related, therefore, the point of aggression ought to have been attended to by the court below as provisions of Section 101 Evidence Act provides that the case of the prosecution needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt but when self defence is pleaded, learned counsel for the appellant states that as per Section 100 IPC only apprehension of assault which may result in death or injury is enough to exercise the right of self defence. It is argued that as the incident, place of occurrence and time is proved and admitted by the prosecution, no further proof is required for giving the benefit of right of self defence to the appellants when the facts and circumstances shows that the incident took place in self defence then the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused as per settled principles of law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and in this regard learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the cross examination of P.W.1 at page-38 of the paperbook wherein he has stated about filing of the first information report by the appellant Raju against the first informant and others and also statement P.W.-7 the I.O. at page-71 wherein it has been stated that the appellant Raju @ Rajkumar had lodged first information report with regard to said incident and also statement of P.W.-8 Head Moharrir at page-75 of the paperbook to authenticate the said fact. Learned counsel for the appellants has also drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of P.W.-2-injured witness at page-46 of the paperbook and has referred to para-10 and has argued that the injuries sustained by the appellant Sukhpal has been admitted which has not been explained and the prosecution is trying to camouflage the same right from the time of initiation till filing of the first information report, therefore, adverse inference ought to be drawn against the prosecution as it failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt for which they are duty bound to prove. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn the attention of this Court to the cross examination of P.W.-2 at page-41 of the paperbook and has argued that it has been admitted that the deceased had assaulted the accused persons by Daraati and has also referred to the statement of P.W.-1 at internal page-23 para-4. It is thus, argued that the injury sustained by the appellant Sukhpal is also said to have been caused by the deceased, therefore, only in self defence the alleged incident took place. It is argued that once the incident is admitted, injuries are admitted, place and time of occurrence is admitted then the conduct of the parties is to be seen and in the present case the prosecution has not claimed any right of self defence nor they have explained the injuries which have been sustained from the side of the appellants although, the appellants have been pleading self defence and reference in this regard has been made to the statement of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which is on record. It is argued that lodging of the first information report by the accused is admitted, the injuries on the person of Sukhpal is admitted by the prosecution which have been duly proved, therefore, provisions of Section 100 IPC would come into play and the benefit of doubt is to be necessarily given to the appellants which has not been done in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Darshan Singh versus State of Punjab and another reported in (2010) 2 SCC 333 and has referred to paragraph-54 to 58 of the aforesaid judgment in support of his contention and has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Lakshmi Singh and others versus State of Bihar reported in (1976) 4 SCC 394 and has referred to paragraph-12 of the same and has argued that in the situation where the prosecution fails to explain the injury on the person of an accused depending on the facts of the case, it may lead to following results- 7. That the accused had inflicted injuries on the members of the prosecution party in exercise of right to self defence or it makes the prosecution version or the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 8. It is argued that in the present case right to self defence was pleaded and benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the appellants therefore, it is argued that the judgment and order of court below cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has contended that the F.I.R. of the present case was not delayed which was lodged at 12.05 p.m. by the informant and the cross F.I.R. which was lodged on behalf of the accused was lodged at 2.45 p.m., therefore, there was no delay. Learned A.G.A. has drawn the attention of this Court to examination of the accused Rohtas at page-78 of the paperbook wherein it has been stated that Sukhpal was being assaulted by eight persons but he received only three injuries which is highly improbable, therefore, it is contended that the trial Court after going through the facts of the case and evidence on record on record has rightly returned the order of conviction which suffers from no infirmity in law and warrants no interference by this Court. 10. The court below after hearing both the parties and after perusing the evidence on record returned the finding of conviction against the accused persons vide the judgment and order impugned, against which the present appeal has been preferred. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and after perusal of the paperbook, it is borne out that the incident, as alleged, is said to have taken place between the parties in which the appellant Sukhpal also received injury. Perusal of the statement of the statement of P.W.-1 at page22-23 of the paperbook (paragraph-2) would demonstrate that it has been stated by the said witness that the land in question was purchased by the said witness in his name and his two brothers vide the registered sale deed whereafter their names were also mutated in revenue records and reference of the said sale deed also finds place in the statement of P.W.-2 at page-43 of the paperbook (paragraph-5). There is nothing on record to show anything contrary to what has been stated by the aforesaid two witnesses, therefore, it is apparent that the land in question which has been purchased in the name of P.W.-1 and his brothers is also recorded in their name in the revenue records and thus, it is apparent that it was the purchaser who were in possession of the said land and had sown the Mungi crop and thereafter had gone to harvest the same at the time of alleged incident. Further records show that the deceased received as many as seven injuries on his person although, it has been contended that he also assaulted the appellant Sukhpal by Daraati on account of which Sukhpal received injuries. The contention as raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that it was in self defence that the incident took place as it was the appellants who had sown the crop and had gone to harvest the same and they were assaulted by the deceased and his son. It is intriguing that if the deceased and his son had assaulted the accused persons, who were more in number, in which Sukhpal received injury and none other sustained any injury while the deceased received as many as seven injuries as per post mortem report. The said fact and circumstances show that the assault was made at the behest of the appellants on the deceased who asked the P.W.-1 to go away failing which he would also be assaulted and in the process of assault he tried to save himself in which the appellant Sukhpal received injury which is also probable because the land was purchased by the son of the deceased and their name was also recorded therefore, there was no reason why the appellants would sow the crop in the land which does not belong to them and why would they go to harvest the same. 12. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the contention as raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants that the incident took place in self defence and the appellants should be given benefit thereof, cannot be believed. This Court does not find any error or illegality in the judgment and order impugned which may warrant interference by this Court, therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed. 13. This Court does not find any error or illegality in the judgment and order impugned which may warrant interference by this Court, therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed. 13. Bail of the appellants, if granted, stands cancelled and they be taken into custody to serve the sentence awarded. Sureties and bail bonds of the appellants stand discharged. 14. Let a certified copy of this judgment and order be transmitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for necessary compliance.