JUDGMENT : Siddharth, J. Heard Sri A.B.L. Gour, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Prabhat Agarwal, Advocate, Counsel for the appellants and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 09.03.1984 passed by Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 303 of 1980 (State vs. Bharat Kumar and others), convicting and sentencing the appellants. Appellant no. 1, Bharat Kumar, has been sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section- 302 I.P.C. He has further been found guilty of offences punishable under Section 325 I.P.C., read with Section 149 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section aforesaid. Six months imprisonment under Section 323 I.P.C read with Section 149 I.P.C. has also been awarded to him. Appellant nos. 2 to 6, namely, Lakhan Lal, Siddha Gopal, Ram Asrey, Lakchhami and Ram Sewak, have been found guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., read with Section 149 I.P.C., and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C., read with Section 149 I.P.C. Each of them have been further found guilty of offences punishable under Section 323 I.P.C., read with Section 149 I.P.C. They have been sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and six month's rigorous imprisonment for the aforesaid offences. All the sentences of all the accuseds are to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the informant, Jagpal, made a report at Police Station- Muskara, District-Hamirpur, stating that on 14.07.1980 at about 6:30 am Jagdamba and Ram Kishan were taking their cattle for grazing and when they reached the agricultural plot of Siddha Gopal on the chak road, Bharat Kumar, Siddha Gopal, Ram Asrey, Lakhan Lal, Lakchhami and Ram Sewak, were near their field on chak road. Bharat Kumar was armed with gun and the others were having lathis. They prevented Ram Kishan and Jagdamba from taking their cattle through the chak road which resulted in hot exchange of words. Thereafter, the informant also reached the scene of incident. Appellants, Siddha Gopal, Ram Asrey, Lakhan Lal, Lakcchami and Ram Sewak, started beating us by lathis when Bharat Kumar fired on the head of Jagdamba Prasad by his gun and he fell down and died. Thereafter, the informant also reached the scene of incident. Appellants, Siddha Gopal, Ram Asrey, Lakhan Lal, Lakcchami and Ram Sewak, started beating us by lathis when Bharat Kumar fired on the head of Jagdamba Prasad by his gun and he fell down and died. Eye-witnesses, Jamuna son of Baura Ahir, Prabhu and Shambhu sons of Parvat Ahir and other villagers were present on the spot and saw the incident. The accused ran towards Tajari. 4. The aforesaid report was registered as F.I.R. on 14.07.1980 at 09:45 pm at Police Station- Muskara, District- Hamirpur. 5. The Investigating Officer took the dead body of the deceased in possession. A inquest report was prepared and the dead body was sent for post-mortem. Investigation was completed by the Investigating Officer and charge-sheet was submitted. 6. On committal of the case to the Sessions Court charges were framed against all the accuseds under Sections 148, 302 I.P.C., read with Sections 149, 323 I.P.C., read with Section 149 I.P.C., and 325 I.P.C. The accuseds denied the charges and sought trial. 7. The prosecution examined, Jagpal (P.W.-1); Raja Bhaiya (P.W.-2); Hari Dass Singh Niranjan, the Investigating Officer (P.W.-3); Babu Singh, Head Constable (P.W.-4); Sri Indra Kumar Jain, Medical Officer (P.W.-5); Bhaiya Lal, Medical Officer (P.W.-6) and Sohan Singh, Pharmacist, PHC, Muskara (P.W.-7). Prosecution also filed an affidavit of Constable Sohan Lal Srivastava, who took the dead body of deceased for post-mortem. 8. P.W.-1, Jagpal, deposed before the court that he knows the accuseds well who are residents of his village. Bharat Kumar and Lakhan Lal, are real brothers. Ram Asrey and Siddha Gopal are cousins of Bharat Kumar. Ram Sewak is the brother-in-law of elder brother of Siddha Gopal. Lakchhami is the son of sister-in-law (jethani) of aunt (bua) of Siddha Gopal. All the accuseds belong to the same party. Deceased, Jagdamba was my real cousin. About three and a half year's back when he was going to ease himself at about 6:30 a.m with axe (farsa) in hand he saw the accuseds near the chak of Siddha Gopal and Raja Bhaiya. Bharat Kumar was holding a licenced gun. Other accuseds were having lathis in their hand. My cousin, Jagdamba and Ram Kishan, reached the field of Siddha Gopal along with their cattle. The accuseds prevented them from taking the cattle from the chak road. Bharat Kumar was holding a licenced gun. Other accuseds were having lathis in their hand. My cousin, Jagdamba and Ram Kishan, reached the field of Siddha Gopal along with their cattle. The accuseds prevented them from taking the cattle from the chak road. Deceased, Jagdamba, stated that it is government chak road and from where else he can take his cattle. Except Bharat Kumar other accuseds started beating him with lathis. Ram Kishan tried to save Jagdamba and gave lathi blows to the accuseds in his defence. I ran to save Jagdamba and Ram Kishan and was also beaten. I used my axe to defend myself and Ram Kishan, causing injuries to Siddha Gopal and Ram Asrey. Thereafter, Bharat Kumar fired at Jagdamba and after falling in the field of Durga he died. This incident was seen by me, Ram Kishan, Jamuna, Prabhu, Shambhu and Raja Bhaiya. In this incident I and Ram Kishan suffered injuries. In the evening, preceding the date of incident, he was coming back with his cattle from the chak road to his village. When he reached the chak of Bhaiyadeen he refused to let the cattle go from the chak road. Ram Kishan had stated that this is government chak road and he will take his cattle therefrom only. Siddha Gopal had come on the spot and had stated that he will see how they will take their cattle tomorrow. At the time of incident, my brother, Jagdamba, was wearing kurta, dhoti, baniyan, safa and juta. On the scene of incident accused Ram Asrey had left his plastic shoes. Thereafter, he lodged the first information report. He admitted being examined by the doctor. Witnesses, Prabhu and Shambhu, have colluded with the accuseds. Witness, Ram Kishan has been murdered. Prior to his murder he was threatened by the accuseds. 9. In his cross-examination, P.W.-1 proved the shoes of the deceased, Jagdamba and accused, Ram Asrey. He further stated that Ram Kishan is 2-3 years older to Jagdamba and was residing with Jagdamba. He further stated that the incident took place during the rainy season. At the time of incident Jwar was sown in the field of Siddha Gopal and chak road was adjacent to the field. Jagdamba and Ram Kishan were taking six cattle. At the same time, Shambhu, Prabhu, Dassi and Gulzari, were also taking their cattle. He further stated that the incident took place during the rainy season. At the time of incident Jwar was sown in the field of Siddha Gopal and chak road was adjacent to the field. Jagdamba and Ram Kishan were taking six cattle. At the same time, Shambhu, Prabhu, Dassi and Gulzari, were also taking their cattle. They took their cattle carefully, without harming the crops, therefore, no dispute took place. He denied that the cattle of Jagdamba and Ram Kishan entered into the field of Siddha Gopal. He denied that Jagdamba and Ram Kishan had axe in their hand and stated that they only had lathis. The spot of incident is half miles away from the village. At the time of the incident there was water logging in the village and therefore he had gone to ease himself away from the village and had reached the scene of incident. He denied that a day prior to the incident the cattle of Ram Kishan had entered into the field of Siddha Gopal and he had asked Ram Kishan not to do so. He further denied that on the next date he, Ram Kishan and Jagdamba had taken axe with them while going with the cattle for grazing. P.W.-1 stated that at the time of lodging F.I.R he forgot to mention that he was carrying axe. He also forgot to mention that he caused injuries to Siddha Gopal and Ram Asrey by axe. He admitted that he never informed the Investigating Officer that he was carrying axe with him at the time of incident. Thereafter, he stated that he had informed this fact to the Investigating Officer and he does not knows why he did not mentioned his fact in his statement. He denied making any axe blow to the deceased Jagdamba. After lodging the FIR he did not went on the scene of incident. He went back to the village after third, fourth day. He was to be medically examined and therefore he did not came back to the village. He had gone to get himself treated and returned after 3-4 days. He denied that there was apprehension that he and Ram Kishan had made axe blow on the deceased, Jagdamba and therefore he ran away from the village. He was to be medically examined and therefore he did not came back to the village. He had gone to get himself treated and returned after 3-4 days. He denied that there was apprehension that he and Ram Kishan had made axe blow on the deceased, Jagdamba and therefore he ran away from the village. He also denied that the cattle of Jagdamba and Ram Kishan had gone into the filed of Siddha Gopal and Raja Bhaiya and when they objected, Jagdamba and Ram Kishan caused axe injury to them and thereafter Bharat Kumar fired on him in self-defence resulting into death of Jagdamba. He denied that he is deposing falsely in this case. 10. P.W.-2, Raja Bhaiya, aged about 13 years in July, 1983, deposed that he knows the accuseds and also the deceased, Jagdamba, At the time of incident he was in the field of Kamlapat Gurudev, when he saw deceased Jagdamba and Ram Kishan coming with their cattle. When they reached the canal they met all the six accuseds who stopped them from taking their cattle from chak road. Jagdamba stated that this is government chak road and they will take their cattle therefrom. On this all the accuseds, except Bharat Kumar, started beating them with lathis. To save them, Jagpal came with the axe and he was also beaten by accuseds. Jagpal gave axe blows in his and Jagdamba's defence. Thereafter, Bharat Kumar fired at Jagdamba who fell down and died. This incident was seen by him, Jamuna, Prabhu, Shambhu and Dassi. Ram Asrey had left his shoes behind. Siddha Gopal and Ram Asrey suffered axe injuries from the axe of Jagpal. Jagpal, P.W-1 and the informant, is his uncle (mama). On the date of incident he was student and the school had re-opened. It was Monday, he had gone to ease himself in the field of Kamlapat Gurudev, which is one mile away from the abadi and had no crops. He did not went to ease himself near the village because of water logging. He saw the entire incident from the field of Kamlapat Gurudev and had accordingly informed the Investigating Officer. He does not knows why this fact was not recorded in his statement by the Investigating Officer. Jagpal reached the scene of incident prior to him but he did not saw him there. He is resident of village- Sikraudi. He saw the entire incident from the field of Kamlapat Gurudev and had accordingly informed the Investigating Officer. He does not knows why this fact was not recorded in his statement by the Investigating Officer. Jagpal reached the scene of incident prior to him but he did not saw him there. He is resident of village- Sikraudi. The school in Sikraudi is only upto class Vth. He had come to village- Husaina for taking transfer certificate because he wanted to take admission in class Vth in village Bhauli. After getting transfer certificate he had come to village Bhauli from taking admission. Thereafter, he stated that he went to Bhauli after 2-3 days and remained their. He stated that he did not took transfer certificate on 10.07.1980 but took the same on 17.07.1980 from village- Husaina. Deceased, Jagdamba and Ram Kishan had lathis. Ram Asrey and Siddha Gopal suffered axe injuries. Investigating Officer had not asked him and therefore he did not informed him that Ram Asrey and Siddha Gopal received axe injuries. Husaina is 14-15 kos away from Sikraudi. There were no jwar crops in the field at the time of incident. Field of Siddha Gopal was lying vacant. 11. P.W.-3, proved the record of investigation and submission of charge-sheet. In his cross-examination he admitted that there is no endorsement of the office of Circle Officer on the first and second parcha, but denied that they were prepared later and date of 31-07 and 01-08 was mentioned. He admitted that the dead body of the deceased was found in the field of Durga lohar. It was vacant and had no crops. Field of Durga is toward west of the chak road and field of Siddha Gopal is toward east wherein small jwar crops were found. He further admitted that in the site plan the place from where Jagpal and Raja Bhaiya saw the incident is not mentioned. He further admitted that Jagpal had initially not informed him about Ram Kishan in his statement. He came to know of the parentage of Ram Kishan from him. In the case diary and charge-sheet he mentioned the father's name of Jagpal as Mahipal. Jagpal had not informed him that he had axe with him at the time of incident wherefrom he caused injuries to Ram Asrey and Siddha Gopal. He came to know of the parentage of Ram Kishan from him. In the case diary and charge-sheet he mentioned the father's name of Jagpal as Mahipal. Jagpal had not informed him that he had axe with him at the time of incident wherefrom he caused injuries to Ram Asrey and Siddha Gopal. P.W.-2, Raja Bhaiya, has also not informed about the fact that he saw the incident while he was easing in the field. During investigation he could not know that accuseds, Ram Asrey and Siddha Gopal, suffered axe injuries. 12. P.W.-4, Babu Singh, proved the factum of registration of FIR by P.W.-1 on 14.07.1980. 13. P.W.-5, Indra Kumar Jain, Medical Officer Incharge, P.H.C., Bahuwa, District- Fatehpur, stated that he was posted as Medical Officer Incharge, Male Hospital, Rath, on 15.07.1980 when Constable, Ved Prakash, brought the dead body of deceased, Jagdamba Prasad, for post-mortem. He found the following injuries on his body:- 1- An incised wound present on right parietal bone 6 cm above the right ear size 11 cm x 3 cm x under line bones broken into pieces and brain material coming out (of it). 2- Gun shot wound of entrance present just above the right eye brow 3 cm from the root of nose towards right, size 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x brain deep. 3- A gun shot wound of entrance present at a distance of 1.5 cm from injury no 2 towards out side, size 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x brain deep. 4- Gun shot wound of entrance present on right side of forehead 4.5 cm above the right ear, size 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x brain deep. 5- Gun shot wound of entrance present on right side of face 1 cm above the right ear, size 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x brain deep. Four pea size bullets were recovered from the brain and sealed. Right frontal, parietal and axillary bones were fractured into multiple pills. 6- An abrasion present on lower part of the left arm 1.5 cm above the left elbow joint (On posterior aspect), size 2 cm x 1 cm. 7- An abrasion present on tip of right elbow, size 1 cm x 0.5 cm. External Examination:- Rigor Mortis was present in lower limbs and absent in upper limbs. Eyes were closed. Mouth half opened. Abdomen distended slightly. Stomach empty. Large intestine full of faecal matter. 14. 7- An abrasion present on tip of right elbow, size 1 cm x 0.5 cm. External Examination:- Rigor Mortis was present in lower limbs and absent in upper limbs. Eyes were closed. Mouth half opened. Abdomen distended slightly. Stomach empty. Large intestine full of faecal matter. 14. P.W-6, Bhaiya Lal posted as Medical Officer Incharge, P.H.C., Muskara, stated that he medically examined Ram Kishan on 15.07.1980 and found the following injuries on his body :- 1- Lacerated wound present on the centre of forehead situated 5.5 cm above the bridge of nose size 2 cm x 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm. 2- Blue coloured contused swelling present on the outer aspect of right forearm situated 3 cm below the elbow size 8 cm x 5 cm tender. 3- Blue coloured contused swelling present on the outer aspect of left forearm situated 4 cm below the elbow size 6.5 cm x 5 cm blue in colour tender. All the injuries were simple in nature and were caused by some blunt object like lathi and were about 1-= days old. 15. P.W.-7, Sohan Singh, Pharmacist, P.H.C., Muskara, produced and proved the injury register from 01.01.1980 to 23.12.1980 before the court. 16. The statement of appellant no. 1, Bharat Kumar, was recorded by the court under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that Jamuna and Jagpal only saw the incident. He further stated that Ram Asrey and Siddha Gopal were on the spot with lathis. Chak road was full of water. Jagdamba and Ram Kishan took their cattle inside the field to which Siddha Gopal objected. Jagdamba gave axe blow to Siddha Gopal. Ram Asrey and Siddha Gopal used lathis in their defence. Ram Kishan caused axe injury to Ram Asrey. He further admitted that he fired from his gun to save the life of Siddha Gopal. 17. Statement of Siddha Gopal, appellant no. 3 was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that Jagdamba and Ram Kishan had axes in their hand and when he stopped them from taking their cattle from his field Jagdamba assaulted him and Ram Kishan assaulted Ram Asrey from axe. Jagpal came with lathi from the village. Jagdamba gave an axe blow to him and in defence Bharat Kumar made a fire in the air. Appellant no. 2, Lakhan Lal, appellant no. 6, Ram Sewak and appellant no. 5, Lakchhami, have been falsely implicated. Jagpal came with lathi from the village. Jagdamba gave an axe blow to him and in defence Bharat Kumar made a fire in the air. Appellant no. 2, Lakhan Lal, appellant no. 6, Ram Sewak and appellant no. 5, Lakchhami, have been falsely implicated. They were not on the scene of occurrence. 18. Appellant no. 4, Ram Asrey, stated that he used lathi in self-defence and ran toward the village. 19. In defence, Chandra Bhushan Dwivedi, Head Master, Rajkiya Primary Pathshala, Husaina, appeared as D.W.-1 and stated that Raja Bhaiya, P.W.-2, had passed class-Vth examination on 01.05.1980 and he took transfer certificate on 10.07.1980. He produced the T.C. book and register before the court to prove the aforesaid fact. He proved the signature of Raja Bhaiya on the counter foil of receiving T.C. On 10.07.1980. 20. Siddha Gopal appeared as D.W.-2 and stated that Ram Kishan and Jagdamba left their cattle in his field and when he stopped them they attacked him by the axes in their hand. He along with Ram Asrey had lathi in his hand. He went in the field of Durga lohar defending himself. Ram Kishan gave axe blow on the left hand of Ram Asrey. When Ram Asrey was running after being injured Jagpal stopped him and they gave lathi blows to each other. In the meantime, Jagdamba gave axe blows twice on his head and he fell down and cried for help. On his cries accused, Bharat Kumar and his father came and when he had fallen Jagdamba was making axe blow on him and then Bharat Kumar fired at Jagdamba and he fell down. Thereafter they went to the police station but the police did not get him and Ram Asrey medically examined nor they were heard. Thereafter, they gave an application before the court and they were examined in jail. 21. During the pendency of this appeal appellant no. 1, Bharat Kumar and appellant no. 5, Lakchhami, have died consequently the appeal is dismissed as abated against them. 22. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the complainant side started assaulting Siddha Gopal and Ram Asrey by farsa and in order to protect Siddha Gopal, who had fallen down on account of axe blows and was being further assaulted by Jagdamba, Bharat Kumar fired at him in self-defence. 22. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the complainant side started assaulting Siddha Gopal and Ram Asrey by farsa and in order to protect Siddha Gopal, who had fallen down on account of axe blows and was being further assaulted by Jagdamba, Bharat Kumar fired at him in self-defence. He has further submitted that in the first information report lodged by Jagpal there is no whisper regarding injuries caused by accused persons. Even in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, have not stated a word regarding causing injuries to the accuseds and their injuries were found by the jail doctor. The prosecution side was aware about the injuries of the accuseds and therefore, in the first information report they stated nothing in this regard so that their defence based on their right of self-defence may not come to the light. It was only before the court that these facts were admitted for the first time by the aforesaid witnesses. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court, Yudhishtir vs. State of M.P., (1971) 3 SCC 436 , wherein the Apex Court held that when a particular fact deposed by the witness does not finds mention in the F.I.R and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is an improvement and it cannot be considered. He has further relied on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Lakshami Singh vs. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394 , wherein the Apex Court held that where the prosecution has suppressed the origin of occurrence and has thus not presented true version, prosecution case becomes doubtful. In Mohan Rai vs. State of Bihar, (1968) AIR SC 1281, the Apex Court held that failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation regarding the injuries suffered by the accused, which cannot be self-inflicted, proves that the evidence of prosecution witnesses relating to the incident is not proved or at any rate not wholly true. Where the trial court and the High court refused to take into consideration this aspect of the case, the Apex Court set aside their verdicts. Where the trial court and the High court refused to take into consideration this aspect of the case, the Apex Court set aside their verdicts. In the case of Babu Ram and another vs. State of Punjab, 2008 60 ACC 991 SC, the Apex Court has similarly held that non-explanation of the injuries sustained by accused-appellant amounts to serious infirmity in the judgment of the High Court and the plea of private defence taken by the appellants cannot be brushed aside in such a case. 23. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2010) 2 SCC(Cri) 1037, wherein the Apex Court held that when there is real apprehension that aggressor might cause death or grievous hurt, right of private defence of defender extends to killing the aggressor. He has stated that had the appellant no. 1, Bharat Kumar, not fired at Jagdamba, he would have killed Siddha Gopal from his axe. Siddha Gopal was already given two axe blows on his head and after he fell down, Jagdamba was aiming at giving him further axe blow which could have proved fatal for Siddha Gopal. In the same regard reliance on the judgments of Gottipulla Venkata Siva Subbrayanam vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1970) 1 SCC 235 and Triloki Nath vs. State of U.P., (2005) 13 SCC 323 has been made. 24. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that when the prosecution comes with a definite case that the offence has been committed by the accused and proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt, it remains hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain how and in what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on the accused. He has further submitted that since all the appellants attacked the deceased and caused his death therefore there is nothing illegal in convicting them for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mangu Khan and another vs. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 10 SCC 374 . In Hare Krishna Singh and ors., etc vs. State of Bihar, (1988) AIR SC 863, the Apex Court held that it is not an inflexible rule and the judgment of Lakshmi Singh (Supra), cited by the Senior Counsel for the appellants has been considered. In Hare Krishna Singh and ors., etc vs. State of Bihar, (1988) AIR SC 863, the Apex Court held that it is not an inflexible rule and the judgment of Lakshmi Singh (Supra), cited by the Senior Counsel for the appellants has been considered. It has been held that aforesaid case has to be read in the context of the facts of that case. In Lakshmi Singh's case it has been held that non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution will not affect the prosecution case where injuries sustained by the accused are minor or superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries of accused then the non-explanation of injuries of the accused would not be fatal for the prosecution. 25. After considering the rival contentions, the issue for determination is whether the prosecution case was reliable, despite non-explanation of injuries caused to appellants, Siddha Gopal and Ram Asrey, by the prosecution side. The next issue for determination is whether the death of Jagdamba took place because of the exercise of the right of private defence on behalf of the prosecution. 26. In the present case, it has come on record that the dispute between the parties took place after the prosecution side forcibly inducted its cattle in the field of the accused, Siddha Gopal. When Siddha Gopal stopped them they gave lathi blows to Siddha Gopal, appellant no. 3 and Ram Asrey, appellant no. 4. While Siddha Gopal suffered incised wound and abrasion, Ram Asrey sustained incised wound. The prosecution admitted injuries suffered by the aforesaid appellants and therefore there was no need of their formal proof by the doctor as also held by the trial court. The court below has disbelieved the injuries suffered by aforesaid appellants on the ground that in their surrender application made before the Magistrate on 18.07.1980, they did not mentioned this fact nor they lodged the F.I.R. about the injuries suffered by them from the axe blows given by Jagdamba and Ram Kishan. The trial court has also disbelieved the injuries suffered by the appellant nos. 3 and 4 on the ground that doctor was not produced before it to prove how the injuries were caused. The trial court has also disbelieved the injuries suffered by the appellant nos. 3 and 4 on the ground that doctor was not produced before it to prove how the injuries were caused. The court below has further held that P.W.-1, Jagpal, admitted that he caused axe injuries to Ram Asrey and Siddha Gopal but his fact was not mentioned in the F.I.R. It is not comprehensible why the trial court has given the benefit of the falsehood in the prosecution case, clear from the statement of P.W.-1, that while he was going to ease himself, he was having an axe and he saw the entire occurrence. Further he caused the axe injuries found on the person of appellant nos. 3 and 4. The trial court has disbelieved the statement of P.W.-1 to the extent he has stated that he caused the injuries to appellant nos. 3 and 4, found on their bodies by the jail doctor. But the trial court has accepted the other part of his statement in court that all the accuseds had jointly gone to the scene of occurrence as a consequence of the threat given by accuseds a day earlier and after the cattle of the accuseds were stopped by the appellants they caused assault by lathis and finally Bharat Kumar fired from his father's gun resulting into death of Jagdamba. 27. The Apex Court in the case of Yudhishtir (Supra) the Apex Court has clearly held that where a particular fact deposed by witness does not finds mention both in F.I.R. and the statement before the police, it is an improvement and cannot be considered. There is no finding recorded by the court that the injuries found by the doctor on the person of appellant nos. 3 and 4 were self-inflicted. The medical evidence regarding the aforesaid injuries was accepted by the trial court as admissible and the injury reports were duly admitted in evidence and exhibited, but it was disbelieved because the doctor was not produced before the court to explain the manner of sustaining injuries. P.W.-1 admitted inflicting injuries in dispute by his axe but his explanation was not accepted since it was not part of the F.I.R. Therefore, the net result would be that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries suffered by the appellant nos. P.W.-1 admitted inflicting injuries in dispute by his axe but his explanation was not accepted since it was not part of the F.I.R. Therefore, the net result would be that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries suffered by the appellant nos. 3 and 4 and the prosecution case would be deemed to be doubtful as per the judgment in the case of Lakshmi Singh (Supra). In the case of Hari Krishna Singh and others (Supra) relied upon by the learned A.G.A., it has been held that the principles laid down in Lakshmi Singh's case have to be read in the context of the facts of that case. In the present case the only prosecution witness of fact is P.W.-1, whose presence on the spot is highly doubtful. He states that he had gone to ease himself outside the village, due to the fact that there was water logging in the village and he could not find appropriate place for the purpose of easing himself. It is not a natural conduct on the part of a chance witness to have carried an axe along with him when he was going for easing. Thereafter, he has given graphic description of the incident but did not disclosed the fact of having an axe with him during the occurrence of the incident. Even before the Investigating Officer he did not stated a word in this regard. It was only before the court that he stated the fact of possessing an axe and also causing injury to appellant nos. 3 and 4 by the same during the incident. The trial court has disbelieved part of his statement of P.W.-1 which was in favour of the accuseds and has accepted part of his statement which was in favour of the prosecution. Such a course cannot be accepted to be in accordance with law. Further in his statement the P.W.-1 has admitted that after lodging the F.I.R he went away from the village for 3-4 days. He denied that was apprehensive that he may not be implicated in this case because there was injury of axe found on the head of the deceased, Jagdamba. He stated that he went away from the village for 3-4 days to get himself treated but no evidence of any treatment was brought on record. 28. He denied that was apprehensive that he may not be implicated in this case because there was injury of axe found on the head of the deceased, Jagdamba. He stated that he went away from the village for 3-4 days to get himself treated but no evidence of any treatment was brought on record. 28. In the case of Mangu Khan and others (Supra) relied upon by the learned A.G.A., the Apex Court relied upon the case of Hare Krishna and others (Supra), where the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Where the witness for the prosecution examined before the court explained the injuries sustained by the deceased, beyond any reasonable doubt, the obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused will not arise. In the present case, the prosecution has not been able to prove the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubt since the testimony of P.W.-1 is not fully reliable as held by the trial court also. The genesis and the origin of occurrence has not been correctly stated by the prosecution nor the manner of incident has been correctly presented, as clear from the statement of P.W.-1 and therefore the prosecution case becomes doubtful. 29. Regarding P.W.-2, Raja Bhaiya, the other witness, who was minor aged about 10 years at the time of incident the court below has discarded the same. It has rightly been done since from the statement of P.W.-2 read with statement of D.W.-1, his presence on the scene of occurrence was highly doubtful. 30. Regarding the issue of the right of self defence exercised by the deceased, appellant no. 1, Bharat Kumar, it remains only an academic question now since he has died during the pendency of this appeal and the appeal has been dismissed as abated against him. Further the prosecution case has been doubted by this court keeping in view the testimony of P.W.-1 and therefore there is no need of deciding this issue. It would have been necessary to decide the same in case the prosecution case was believed by this court since the fate of conviction of the appellant nos. 2 to 6, under Section 302 I.P.C read with Section 149 I.P.C. was dependent on the fate of the case of the appellant no. It would have been necessary to decide the same in case the prosecution case was believed by this court since the fate of conviction of the appellant nos. 2 to 6, under Section 302 I.P.C read with Section 149 I.P.C. was dependent on the fate of the case of the appellant no. 1, who was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. for life along with offences under Section 325 I.P.C. read with 149 I.P.C., and Section 323 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. 31. After consideration of the entire material on record and the judgment of the trial court, we have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the alleged crime against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment and order of conviction of the trial court is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges. The bail bonds of the appellants are cancelled and the sureties are discharged. 32. Let the copy of this judgment along with lower court record be certified to court below for compliance. 33. This Criminal Appeal is allowed.