JUDGMENT

ORDER:— Six persons, including the respondents Madho and Kshna, were put up for trial for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 326/ 323, I.P.C. The trial Court acquitted four women co-accused but convicted Madho under Sections 302 and 326, I.P.C. and Kishna under Sections 302 and 323, I.P.C. and sentenced both of them to life imprisonment for the murder of Mangi Lal. The two convicted accused preferred an appeal which was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution evidence tendered against the convicted accused was full of infirmities and the prosecution version regarding the incident could not be accepted as the prosecution witness had failed to explain injuries sustained by these two accused persons. In that view that the High Court took it reversed the decision of the trial Court and acquitted both the accused persons. It is against the said order of acquittal that the State has preferred this appeal.

2. According to the prosecution, on April 13, 1973, around noon time when PW 1- Gouri Lal was getting a well dug, the dug- up earth was thrown on the adjoining land to which the accused protested. The two respondents abused PW 1 and thereafter Kanwari attacked him and gave lathi blows to PW 1. On hearing an alarm, PW 2 - Lal Chan(i anti the deceased rushed to the site. The respondent Madho struck a farsi blow on the leg of PW 2 which resulted in fracture. The deceased removed PW 2 to the house of Bapu Chamar at a short distance from the field. The prosecution case is that the two respondents and the other four acquitted accused persons followed the deceased and PW 2 the two respondents entered the house of Bapu Chamar and gave farsi blows on the head of the deceased to which he ultimately suecumbed. Thus the prosecution case is divided in two parts, namely, the incident which.took place in the field where PW 1 was getting a well dug and the incident which took place at the house of Bapu Chamar. So far as the first part of the incident is concerned, both the Courts came to the conclusion that the prosecution version that Kanwari lauched the assault on PW 1 and the other three ladies also attacked him is not worthy of acceptance. As regards the second part of the incident the trial Court came to the conclusion that the two respondents were not entitled to any right of private defence because they had actually followed PW 2 and the deceased when the latter was removed by the former to Bapu Chamars house and had belaboured the deceased there. Therefore, even though the respondents had sustained injuries they were not entitled to right of private defence as they were the aggressors. In this view that the trial Court took it convicted the two respondentsas stated earlier. The High Court on a reappreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution witnesses were guilty of shifting their stand and had failed to explain the serious injuries on the two respondents. So far as PW 1 is concerned, the High Court noticed that he had changed his version from the one stated in the First Information Report as well as his evidence before the committing Court. Before the committing Court he had stated that after he received injuries he became unconscious and had not noticed the assault on PW 2 as well as the deceased. The High Court further noticed that on his own showing he has gone to his resi dence from the field for drinking water and by the time he reached Bapu Chamars house the deceased had fallen on the ground with injuries. In other words PW 1 cannot be said to be an eye-witness of the second part of the incident. So far as PW 2 is concerned we find that according to his version he received an injury on the leg when he went to the rescue of PW 1. His version that PW 1 was belaboured by the ladies has not been accepted by both the Courts. Even in regard to that version he is found to have shifted his stand. He deposes that after