G.L. Gupta, J.-This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 29-1-98 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Balotra whereby he convicted the appellants under Section, 325/34, 324/34 and 323. Instead of sentencing them he ordered the release of the appellants on probation and further ordered them to (pay) compensation of Rs. 4,000/-to Bagda Ram, injured.

2. The admitted facts of the case are that an occurrence had taken place on 28-2-97 at 5 p.m. in village Gudanal for which both the parties lodged first information reports, and both the parties were challaned. Mr. Choudhary informed that both the cases were decided by the trial Court on 29-1 -98 and in both the cases, the parties were released on probation but in the instant ease compensation was also directed to be paid by the appellant.

3. In the FIR Exhibit P-i lodged by Gila Ram PW. 1 it was stated that when he was in his field and his brother Bagda Ram was going to his house accused Nena Ram, Bhabuta Ram, Deeparam, Smt. Antiyo, Smt. Dariya and Miss Saurabh armed with Dhariya, axe and lathis attacked him and hurling abuses, gave beatings to him and when he (first informant) rushed to intervene he was also given beatings. On this report, a case under Section. 447, 441, 143 and 323, IPC and Section, 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST.’ (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered. After the completion of the investigation the police submitted a challan against 3 appellants only. Charges under Section, 324/34, 325/34 and 323/34, IPC and Section, 3(l)(x) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were framed against them, who pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PW. 1 Gila Ram, PW. 2 Bagda Ram, PW. 3 Basant Pun, PW. 4 Pukhraj, PW. 5 Bakhta, PW. 6 Hukmaram and PW. 7 Dr. Sureshchandra Somani. Accused in their statements under Section, 313, CrPC denied accusation. Their case was that in the occurrence they were given beatings by the complainant party. Nena Ram gave evidence in defence. The learned Special Judge held that the charge under Section, 3(1)(x) of the S.C./S.T. Act was not proved. He further held that it was a case of free fight and the accused were not entitled to the plea of right of self-defence. He convicted the appellants as stated above.

4. Mr. Choudhary contended that the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellants. His submission was that the accused had a right of private defence to cause injuries to the prosecution witnesses, who were aggressors. Pointing out that the Investigating Officer has not been examined and there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses Mr. Choudhary submitted that the appellants should be acquitted.

5. Thelearned Public Prosecutor on the other hand, contended that by the evidence produced in the case charges against the appellants are fully established and they have been rightly convicted by the trial Court.

6. I have carefully considered the above arguments. Now it is not in dispute that in the occurrence both the parties had sustained injuries. It is further not in dispute that there was enmity between the parties prior to the occurrence. Both the parties are close neighbors. There is no cause to disbelieve Gila Ram and Bagda Ram when they depose that the accused had caused injuries to them. The testimony of the witnesses cannot be rejected on the mere ground that there are some discrepancies appearing in their statements as to the place of occurrence and the weapon used by Bhabuta Ram. Some discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of the witnesses. Some times the witnesses in order to counter the case of the opponent make improvements in their statements but on these grounds the entire testimony of the witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground of non-examination of the 10 also the prosecution case cannot be discarded in to.

7. The learned Special Judge has assigned convincing reasons for concluding that it was a case of free fight. There is no cause to take a different v