1. 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge Bundi dated 22/7/1987 whereby accused-appellants Kesrilal and Gobrilal were convicted for offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code and each of them were sentended to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 500/- with the further stipulation that in default of payment of fine, they shall have to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months. Accused-appellant Kishanlal however was convicted for offence under Section 324 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of three months.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that a first information report was lodged by one Mangilal on 20/6/1986 at P.S. Kapren, District Bundi inter-alia alleging therein that at 5-6 pm on that day, he along with his brother Ramswaroop had gone to the pond to collect sand where accused Kishanlal S/o Dhanna, Kesra S/o Kishanlal, Babu S/o Chaturbhuj, Chaturbhuj S/o Dhanna, Gobri Lal S/o Udha, Sohanlal S/o Dhanna and Bodiram S/o Kanha were sitting armed with 'kulhadis', 'kudali' and 'gandasis'. Kesra inflicted kulhadi blow on the head of Ramswaoop, Kishanlal inflicted kudali blow on left hand shoulder of Ramswaroop, kesra inflicted kulhadi blows at three places at his back. Gobriya inflicted 'kutia' blow on the frontal side of the face of Mangilal, resulting into loss of upper teeth of Mangilal. Babu caused 'lathi' blow on his right hand. Other accused beat them with fists. This incident was witnessed by Gopal Dhabhai, Mathura S/o Heera Meena, Gopal S/o Nathu Gujar all are residents of village Khedli. The police upon investigation of the matter filed challan against all the aforesaid accused for offences under Sections 307, 148/326/149, 148, 326 and 307/149, 307/149, 326/149, 148 & 324, 307/149, 326/149, 148 & 323 & 307/149, 326/149 and 148 Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and defence examined one witness. Apart from above, prosecution examined as many as 17 documents. Trial court upon conclusion of trial convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants herein for offences as indicated above and acquitted rest. Hence, this appeal.

3. I have heard Ms.Anita Jain, learned counsel for the accused-appellants and Shri Deen Dayal Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

4. Ms.Anita Jain, learned counsel for the appellants argued that in fact complainant-party was aggressor and the incident had taken place near the field of accused-appellants. Cross-cases were registered by the parties against each other. Accused appellants also lodged first information report against the complainant-party with Police Station Kapren about the same incident which was registered as FIR No.43/1986. In the same incident, accused- appellants and Kalyani from the side of the accused- appellants sustained serious injuries. Challan was also filed against Sukhpal, Mangilal, Gopal and Ramswaroop of the complainant-party for offences under Sections 323, 324 and 341 Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel however is not in a position to inform the court as to what ultimately happened in that matter. She however argued that prosecution witnesses in the present case have improved upon their original version as dislocsed in their statements earlier recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code. Out of the total five eye-witnesses, learned trial court has not believed two of the witnesses and the rest three witnesses on whose testimony the conviction has been recorded, are injured witnesses. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellants contended that in absence of corroboration, their testimony could not be relied upon by the learned trial court for recording conviction and sentence of the accused-appellants. Moreover, since the trial court on the basis of same evidence has acquitted other four accused, the present accused-appellants are also entitled to be acquitted on the self-same untrustworthy evidence of the prosecu