N.S. Gupta, J. - (1.) This criminal revision is against the judgement and order dated 25.3.1983, passed by Sri A.L. Srivastava, the then I Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal 238 of 1982, partly allowing the appeal by setting aside the conviction of the accused revisionists under Section 325/149 Indian Penal Code and dismissing their appeal in part in so far as it relete to their conviction and sentence under Section 147 Indian Penal Code for six months R.I. and under Section 323/149 for six months R.I. and further under Section 452 Indian Penal Code for one year R.I. and further directing that the sentence shall rum consecutively. The prosecution story as briefly stated is as follows:- The complainant Suresh Chauhan P.W.1 as also the accused revisionists were all resident of village Jigna Karampur, P.S. Kandharapur, District Azamgarh. They were related as collateral's. The prosecution claimed that accused revisionists Sarvdeo wanted to take forceable possession of Sehan Land of the complainant. Accused revisionists Ramhit, Ganpat and Raghypat were helping the revisionist Sarvdeo in that design since about four days before the date of occurrence of the case, Viz. on 12.3.78 at about 5.00 P.M. Accused revisionists Sardeo and Rabhupat with the help of police constable of P.S. Kandharapur went to the house of the complainant and assaulted him with kicks and fists for which the complainant had lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh. The incident of this case took place of 16.3.78 when the complainant has gone to Azamgarh for doing pairvi of the case in the court of D.D.C. His mother, sister and wife were at his house in village Jigna Karamanpur. At about 2.00 P.M. accused revisionists Sarvdeo, Ramhit, Ganpat, Raghupat and Smt. Shubhwati had formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the said lawful assembly, they assaulted Smt. Bilayati Devi, sister of the complainant, Smt. Murati Devi, wife of the complainant and Smt. Umrai the mother of the complainant and caused following injuries to them:- Injuries of Smt. Bilayati Devi:- 1. Lacerated wound 1 Cm x 1/2 Cm. x 1/2 Cm. deep on the lower lip on gross margin in the middle. Left inciser teeth in lower jaw broken and came out of the socket. There was fresh lacerated wound on the root of the left incisor tooth in the lower jaw. The other teeth were carrious but intact in their sockets. 2. Contusion 6 cm. x 3 cm. on the outer and upper part of the right thigh. 3. Contusion 3 cm. x 2 cm. on the upper and middle part of the right side chest. Injuries of Smt. Murati Devi. 1. Lacerated wound 21/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. muscle deep on the upper and middle part of the forehead on lower margin 4 cm. above the right eye brow, inner end. 2. Contusion 6 cm. x 3 cm. on the lower and back part of the left forearm just above the left wrist. 3. Contusion 3 cm. x 2 cm. on the left line in the middle. Injuries of Smt. Umrai. 1. Lacerated wound 6 cm. x 1 cm. x scale deep of the left side head on frontal region 8 cm. above left ear (bleeding). 2. Contusion 4 cm. x 2 cm. on the top of the left shoulder 8 cm. outer to neck (red). 3. Contusion 3 cm. x 11/2 cm. on the top of the right shoulder 9 Cm. outer to the neck (red). The complainant filed a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate on 21.3.78 on the basis of which the accused revisionists were prosecuted and convicted by the trial Magistrate under Sections 147/323/452 Indian Penal Code as aforesaid. The trial magistrate further convicted the accused revisionists under Sections 325/149 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of six months each. On appeal the conviction under Section 325 Indian Penal Code was set aside but was sustained under Section 147/323/149/452 Indian Penal Code. hence the revision appeal. I have heard Sri. V.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the accused revisionists and Sri. G.S. Bisaria, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State considered their contentions and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. It appears that a notice of the case was duly served upon the complainant Sri. Suresh Chauhan but the complainant or his counsel did not turn up before this court to make any submission. The first point raised on behalf of the accused revisionists before me is that the Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have failed to appreciate that the accused revisionists had not furnished any plausible explanation regarding the injuries of the accused Smt. Shubhawati and therefore, it should be presumed that the prosecution suppressed the true genesis of the occurrence and has not presented true version of the occurrence. Reliance was placed upon the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Singh v. State of Bihar, 1976 (13) ACC 373 at page 378 . I have carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of the case as also the records in the case. Two witnesses of fact viz. Smt. Bilayati Devi, P.W.3 and Tapsi, P.W.4 were examined before the court below. Smt. Bilayati was the injured eye witness of the occurrence. She stated that on the date of occurrence in the afternoon Sarvdeo, Ramhit, Ganpat, Raghupat and Smt. Shubhawati were digging his cattle tub and were trying to include that portion of her land in her sehan. She stated that his brother Suresh Chauhan had gone to Azamgarh in connection with hearing of consolidation case. She stated that accused revisionists Ganpat was exhorting that the cattle trough be demolished and be included in his Sehan. Her mother asked them to refrain from doing so thereupon Sarvdeo assaulted her mother. She raised alarm and attracted Tapsi P.W.4 Ganga and others who intervened into the matter. She stated that the accused revisionists were armed with lathis. She further stated that she, her sister Murati also sustained injuries. The accused persons thereafter ran away. She further stated that the thereafter came to Azamgarh where she got her injuries as also the injuries of her sister Murati and Smt. Umrai examined in the District Hospital, Azamgarh. During the course of her cross examination Smt. Bilayati Devi stated that because she had sustained injuries she did not see the injuries of accused revisionists Subhawati. She further stated that she became unconscious. It was further suggested on behalf of the accused persons that at the time of occurrence Smt. Bilayati and the male members of her family tried to put a cattle trough on the land of the accused revisionists Sarvdeo whereupon accused revisionists Subhawati asked him to refrain from doing so. Accused revisionists further suggested to this witness during the course of later cross examination that on the refusal of Smt. Subhawati, she was assaulted and that the injuries found on the person of Smt. Bilayati Devi, Smt. Murati Devi and Smt. Umrai were caused in exercise of the right of private defence. Tapsi, P.W.4 during the course of his cross examination specifically stated that he did not see the injuries on the person of any of the accused revisionists. The record of the case reveals that on behalf of the accused revisionists, a copy of F.I.R. lodged by them on 16.3.78 at P.S. Kandharapur stating therein that the accused persons had assaulted Smt. Subhawati the accused revisionist by means of lathis, fists and kicks and were the aggressors as also the medical examination report of Smt. Smt. Subhawati the accused revisionist showing the following injuries on her person were filed as Exh. Kha-1 and Kha-2:- Injuries of Smt. Subhawati. 1. Lacerated wound 4 cm. x 1/2 cm. x scale deep on the Rt. side head 10 cm. above the right ear (bleeding present). 2. Contusion 6 cm. x 3 cm. on the right side chest in the middle. It would thus be seen that the clear case of the accused revisionist from the very beginning was that the injuries found on the person of the injured Smt. Bilayati, P.W.3, Smt. Murati and Smt. Umrai were caused in exercise of the right or private defence. When it was suggested to Smt. Bilayati, P.W. 3 that accused revisionist Subhawati had also sustained injuries in the occurrence in question, it was the duty of the complainant to have given plausible explanation regarding the injury of Smt. Subhawati, which was clearly borne out from the medical examination report Exh. Kha-2. Since the prosecution had suppressed the injures of accused revisionist Subhawati, it is obvious that the prosecution had suppressed the true genesis of the occurrence. The circumstances that Smt. Bilayati according to the medical examination report was not unconscious and further that when asked to explain the injuries of accused revisionist Subhawati she stated that she did not see the injuries of Smt. Subhawati fully go to show that she has been living on the material point of the incident. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and upheld by the lower Appellate Court Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh were bad in law. This revision is therefore allowed and the impugned order on conviction and sentence passed against the accused revisionists are set aside. The accused revisionists are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled, buy they need not surrendered.;