D.C. Srivastava, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against the judgement and order dated 15th December, 1979 of Sri G.S.R. Tandon, IInd Additional Sessions Judge Muzaffarnagar convicting the appellants Prahalad and Khancheroo under Section 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment. Accused Saluka, Tara Maluka and Sheru besides the appellants faced trial and ultimately Saluka, Tara Maluka and Sheru were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The prosecution story in brief is that Abhey Singh is the real brother of the informant Kadan Singh whereas the injured Prem Singh is the cousin brother of the informant. On 24th September, 1977 these two persons, namely, Abhey Singh and Prem Singh had gone to the town of Luhari for purchasing house hold articles. It was at 3 P.M. when those persons reached near the grove of Sukhbir the appellants and his three companions suddenly came out of the grove. They were armed with lathis, Tabal and spears. They started beating Abhey Singh and Prem Singh and were exhorting that these two persons should be killed because they were helping one Chand in connection with this case. Raghubir, Dhan Singh, Rai Singh, Sukhar, Jamir and others reached the scene of occurrence. They intervened and saved the two injured. The two injured were taken for medical examination to Government Hospital Charthawal. Thereafter along with the injury report, the injured were taken to the police station, where the first information report was lodged. After usual investigation all the five persons were sent up for trial. The appellants and their companions pleaded not guilty. Their defence in short was that Abhay Singh, Kadam Singh, Gerja Singh, Prem Singh Rahtoo, Chand Singh 'Sher Singh' Kadam Singh, son of Nasib Singh and Chohar started cutting paddy crop of Prahalad Singh. Prahalad Singh, Khacheroo and Rambhool Singh went there. They objected whereupon except Prem Singh and Abhay Singh the remaining persons ran away. Prem Singh and Abhey Singh had beaten those persons and in turn they took their self defence. The prosecution examined Dr. A.K. Goel, Medical Officer (P.W.1), Kadam Singh (P.W.2), Prem Singh (P.W.3) and Jasmir (P.W.4) besides formal police witnesses and the Investigating Officer. The appellants also examined Bal Krishan (D.W.1) and Buddhu (D.W.2). After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants and acquitted the remaining four persons, hence this appeal by the two appellants. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. and examined the record. Number of points were raised for assailing the judgement under appeal. In the instant appeal it cannot be said that there was considerable delay in lodging the first information report. The incident took place on 24th September, 1977, at 3 P.M. The first information report was lodged on the same day at 9.05 P.M. In the first information report itself it is mentioned that at first the injured were taken for medical aid and then the first information report was lodged. The distance between the scene of occurrence and the police station is five miles. The first information report has therefore, corroborative value and cannot be said to have been lodged after consultation and deliberation. The Medical Officer examined the two injured Prem Singh and Abhay Singh. The injuries could have been caused at about 3 P.M. and the examination were also promptly done on the same day between 7.30 P.M. to 8.30 P.M. The first contention has been that no case under Section 307 Indian Penal Code is made out because there is no supplementary injury report or X-Ray report and X-ray plate on the record. I have seen the injury reports of Prem Singh and Abhey Singh. Prem Singh received six injuries detailed in the judgement of the court below as well as in the injury report. Out of these six injuries only injury No.3 was kept under observation and its X-ray was advised. Injury No. 3 of Prem Singh was on non-vital part of the body, namely on the right shoulder joint 3 cm. lat, to the acromio, size 6 cm. x 1.5 cm. unable to move the right shoulder joint. Colour reddish. The other injuries were also on non-vital part of the body. In the injury report it is mentioned that except injuries nos. 1 and 3, all were simple. It means that injuries No.1 and 3 were not simple. Even if the X-ray report and X-ray plate regarding injury No.3 was not brought on record it does not create suspicion that the case does not fall under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. Injury No.1 of Prem Singh was certainly on vital part of the body. It was incised injury and it was cut and muscle deep 1.5 cm. Bone was also visible. Dr. K.K. Goel (P.W.1) has stated that injuries No.1 and 2 of Prem Singh were on vital part of his body and these injuries could cause death of Prem Singh. Injury No.2 was also on vital part namely, on the right side of head but since in the injury report, this injury was found to be simple and it was not kept under observation nor is there any supplementary injury report, it cannot be accepted that injury No.2 could have proved fatal. However, injury No.1 could proved fatal and nothing was suggested in the3 cross examination that this injury could not prove fatal. The cross examination of Dr. Goel was lengthy and searching. Likewise regarding injury of Abhay Singh, it was stated by Dr. Goel that his injuries No.1 and 4 were on vital part of the body and could prove fatal. Injury No.1 of Abhay Singh was lacerated injury on the head 4 cm. x 5 cm. X-ray was advised. Injury No.4 was on the chest and upper part of abdomen extending from left nipple to 1 cm. below the right sub-costal martin in the mamary line. X-ray of this injury was also advised. There is no X-ray of report, X-ray plate or supplementary injury report regarding these injuries of Abhay Singh. But again Dr. Goel in his examination has not suggested that these two injuries could not prove fatal. Expert evidence in these circumstances has to be accepted and in my opinion the case certainly falls within the ambit of Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code. The next contention has been that there are three persons on the side of the injured who sustained injuries and since their injuries were not explained by the prosecution, the appellants are entitled to acquittal. Rambol, Prahalad and Khacheroo sustained injuries. Rambol was not an accused whereas Prahalad and Khacheroo are accused in the case. All the injuries No. 1 to 5 of Rambol were simple in nature. Further these injuries were more than 12 hours duration. He was medically examined on 25th September,1977 at 12.30 P.M. More than 12 hours does not mean 24 hours. If 6 hours variation is given on either side, these injuries of Rambol could be caused 18 hours before medical examination conducted on 25th September,1977. This by no stretch of imagination indicates that Rambol could receive injuries on 24th September,1977 at 3 P.M. If he did not receive injuries on the date and time suggested by the prosecution the prosecution was not obliged to explain the minor injuries, consisting of four abrasions, one contusion and complaint of pain in right knee joint of Rambol. This failure of the prosecution has, therefore, has not adverse effect on the prosecution story. Appellant Prahalad received four injuries, out of which one injury was incised wound, two abrasions and one contusion. These injuries were also more than 12 hours old. In the injury report of Prahalad Singh, the nature of his injuries is not mentioned. He was medically examined on 25th September, 1977 at 11.55 A.M. Giving 6 hours variation to either side, it is again difficult to say that these injuries could be caused on the date and time suggested by the prosecution. Apparently all the injuries were simple in nature. According to the injury report injury No.1 was caused by sharp edged weapon as sharp as blade. The learned Additional Sessions Judge therefore, did not fall in error in observing that these injuries could be manufactured or self suffered. Injury of Khacheru was complaint of pain in the left forearm. Furuncle with clotted blood all around on the lat. aspect of the lower end of the left leg 7 cm. above the lateral malleolus. This injury was also simple. He was medically examined on 25th September,1977 at 1 P.M. According to injury report, furancle was few days old which seems to be traumatised few hours back. Thus it is again difficult to say that this injury of Khacheru was caused on the date and time of occurrence. The statement of Dr. Goel shows that either he was confused or he wanted to help the appellants. He stated that the injuries of Prahalad and Rambol were more than 12 hours old and could be caused in the intervening night of 24/25th September, 1977 between 11 and 12 O'clock. This again clarifies that these two persons did not receive injuries on 24th September,1977 at 3 P.M. rather somewhere in the night after the incident took place. It further shows that the observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the injuries were manufactured is justified. At another place Dr. Goel stated that the three injured on the side of the accused could have received injuries on 24th September,1977 at 12 O'clock in the day. It is again absurd statement. In any way even this statement does not show that they received injuries on 24th September,1977 at 3 P.M. The prosecution in these circumstances was not obliged to explain such suspicious injuries nor its failure is a ground for drawing adverse inference against the prosecution. Another contention has been that the three accused on the same evidence have been acquitted whereas the appellants on the same evidence have been convicted, hence the order under appeal cannot be sustained. I do not find force in this contention. The case of each accused has to be seen on the basis of the evidence on the record. Even if for a moment it is believed that three persons were wrongly acquitted, it does not mean that the accused against whom there is believable evidence should also be acquitted. I have considered the statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. P.W.2 Kadam Singh is not an eye witness. He received information of the incident from Rai Singh. Consequently, if there was some omission in the first information report in not specifying the exact weapon in the hands of the each accused, it cannot be said that the informant committed mistake of this nature which can create suspicion in the prosecution story. He was informed about the incident by Rai Singh and then he went to the place of occurrence where he had talk with Prem Singh and Abhay Singh appellants. In the witness box he stated that Maluka had a spear, Prahalad had Tabol and the remaining accused were armed with lathis. In the first information report eye witnesses have also been named. From his statement it is difficult to say that the place of occurrence has been shifted. He stated that he did not see the blood near the grove. On the other hand blood was seen at the place of occurrence, namely, sugar cane field of Boddhu. He has also denied the defence story and has likewise denied that the incident took place at 12 O'clock in the day. He has further denied that there was compromise in the presence of Sarpanch and the report was lodged subsequently by practising fraud. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly observed that the accused were not able to establish that any compromise was made before the first information report was lodged. P.W.3, Prem Singh is the injured witness. I have carefully gone through his statement and I find that he has corroborated the prosecution story. He too has not shifted the place of occurrence. According to him the place of occurrence was on the one side of the dole of the sugar cane field of Buddhu. On the other side of the sugar cane field, there was paddy field. On account of the marpit paddy plants were seen broken. It cannot be said that the defence version has been probablised. It cannot be said that because the witness had stated that because the beating took place on the Mend of the field of Buddhu, the place of occurrence is shifted. That is why he has described the place of occurrence on the Mend, which is also part of the field of Buddhu. P.W.4 Jasbir is another witness, who was present at the scene of occurrence. He is named in the first information report. In the examination-in-chief he has supported the prosecution story. There is no material contradiction in his cross examination upon which he can be dis-believed. He too has fixed the place of occurrence to be the field of Buddhu. He has clarified that on the one side of the Mend there was paddy crop and on the other side there was sugarcane crop and the place where the two injured were beaten was the dole and some paddy plants on the other side of the dole were also broken. He has categorically denied that the paddy crop was owned by Tara or it was the field of Tara. He too noticed blood on the dole which again fixed the place of occurrence. He had reasons to be present there. He stated that Prem Singh received injury by Tabal. I find that this witness is also a reliable witness. Thus the injured witness finds corroboration from one independent witness, Jasbhir and also from the medical evidence namely injury reports and the statement of Dr. Goel (P.W.1). Dr. Goel stated regarding the incised injury of Prem Singh that it could be caused by sharp edged weapon like Tabal or spear. Since there was no punctured injury or state injury which could be caused by spear the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted benefit of doubt to the accused holding spear. Khacheru was armed with lathi. The remaining injuries of Prem Singh and Abhay Singh could be caused by blunt object like lathi. Prahalad appellant was armed with Tabal. The next contention has been that the right of private defence was available to the appellants and the appellants were not obliged to establish the plan of private defence by the same standard of evidence as is expected from the prosecution. In my opinion since the place, time and the date of occurrence suggested by the defence are different the appellants are not entitled to claim the right of private defence nor on the said plea they have been able to raise suspicion in the prosecution story. The situation would have been different if the date, time and place of occurrence would have been the same and if this fact would have been admitted by the two sides or would have been proved by the evidence adduced by the two sides. Since it was not so, the plea of private defence is hardly available to the appellants. It also seems improbable that nine persons on the side of the complainant were aggressors. If they were cutting paddy crop by show of force and on protest they had beaten three persons on the side of the accused, more injuries of serious nature should have been caused to the persons on the side of the accused. In any event the first information report of the cross version, set up by the appellants should also have been lodged. There is nothing on record to suggest that the first information report of the cross version was ever lodged by the accused persons. It therefore, transpires from the evidence on record that in the first place the date, time and place of occurrence suggested by the defence are different. In the second place there is no first information report of the cross version nor any cross case was registered. Silence of the accused in these circumstances is hardly capable to creating suspicion in the prosecution story. It was next contended that other independent witnesses named in the first information report have not been examined. In my view it was not necessary for the prosecution to examine all the witnesses named in the first information report. I also do not find force in the contention that the place of occurrence has been shifted. I have already given my reasons above from the statements of the witnesses that the place of occurrence was the Mend of the field of Buddho. I also do not find anything suspicions in the prosecution story simply because the first information report was lodged after medical examination, it might have been thought proper to give medical aid to the two injured first and then to proceed for lodging the first information report. I have also considered the defence evidence consisting of the statements of Lekhpal Bal Kishan (D.W.1) and Buddhu (D.W.2). Since the incident took place on the Mend of the field of Buddhu it was not necessary that permanent passage should have existed. It is not un-common for the villagers to pass through Mend on their way to market or to any other place. Consequently the statements of these two witnesses are also incapable of creating suspicion in the prosecution story. I again do not find force in the contention that because blood was also seen in the paddy field it shifts the place of occurrence. The evidence shows that the blood was also seen in the paddy field adjoining the sugar cane field of Buddhu and not in the field of the appellants. Thus on this ground also the place of occurrence cannot be said to have been shifted. No other point was pressed. I therefore, find that the order of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. On the point of sentence the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has already taken a very lenient view and awarded three years rigorous imprisonment. Further reduction of sentence is not in the interest of justice keeping in view the injuries sustained by the two injured. It was a case of pre-planned action on the part of the appellants. Consequently on the point of sentence also,k no interference is called for. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The judgement and order under appeal are confirmed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal Dismissed.;