Rajindra Sachur, J.
1. Bhagwandas accused was tried under Sections 307, 332 and 148 I.P.C. along with live other accused, who were tried under Sections 332, 147 and 307 (SIC)ad with Section 149 I.P.C. by the Additional Sessions, Judge Bharatpur. The respondents are one family namely, Ramjilal is the father and four others are wife and sons of Ramjilal.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on July 11, 1969, at about 5.00 p. m., Harnamsingh, Head Constable, along with Harbans Singh and Narayanlal constables went to the house of accused Ramjilal to arrest him in case No. 49 under Sections 342, 324 and 325 IPC of police station Nadbai. The further case was that in order to escape arrest Ramjilal entered the house and called upon his sons to beat the police. It was further alleged that in the process, Harbans Singh and Harnam Singh were given beatings. Accused Bhagwandas was said to have given Tangadi blow on the head of Harban Singh constable. Ramjilal was said to have taken the police 'danda' from the cycle of Narayan Singh and also inflicted blow to the police officers. The other accused also were said to have joined in inflicting blows. The Additional Sessions Judge found the witnesses unreliable and has acquitted the accused persons. The State has now come up in appeal.
3. On a report by Ramjilal, son of Chandan, the police, in investigation of offences under Sections 324, 342 and 325 I.P.C. went to the house of Ramjilal respondent. The fact that the police had gone to the house of accused Ramjilal on the day of occurrence is not disputed. The fact that the beating has been given to the police is also not disputed. The defence of the respondents was that the police, notwithstanding that the offence in case No. 49. of 1969, in investigation of which the police had come to the house of Ramjilal accused, was bailable, tried to arrest Ramjilal and hence blows were exchanged. In the First Information Report recorded by PW 7 Harnamsingh, Head Constable, what was stated was that in investigation of case No. 49 of 1969, they had gone to the house of Ramjilal and when they tried to arrest Ramjilal, he, in order to avoid being arrested, tried to enter the house, whereupon he caught him. Thereupon Bhagwandas and other accused started giving beating and also saying that they would murder the police people. In the evidence, however, this version was materially changed where he stated that when he went to the house of Ramjilal, he told him that the latter should consider himself under arrest and that if he offers bail, he may do so. But instead of giving bail, Ramjilal wanted to enter the house. Thereupon he says that he arrested him on which Ramjilal shouted and his sons came and started beating He admits that the offence in case No. 49 of 1969 was bailable. He had also to concede that he had not mentioned in the First Information Report that Ramjilal was asked to offer bail. In evidence, he changed his version to say that Ramjilal, on seeing them, made efforts to run away and therefore he was arrested but this does not find mention in the First It formation Report He admits the presence of Mangilal PW 2, who was younger brother of Ramjilal son of Chandan, on whose complaint, investigation was being made in case No. 49 of 1969 which shows that the presence of police at the spot was not so innocent. It may also be mentioned that the other eye-witnesses that have been examined by the police are PW 5 and PW 9 Dwarka Prasad Ramgopal is the nephew of Ramjilal in complaint No. 49 of 1969 and Dwarka Prasad is the brother-in-law of Ramgopal. The independent witness PW 1 Lohre did not support the prosecution case. Rather PW 1 has supported the defence cafe that Ramjilal accused requested to furnish the bail but the police did not accept this request. It is thus clear from the evidence or PW 7 and the version given by the prosecution witness in court, that bail was demanded from accused Ramjilal but he refused, is an after thought and cannot be accepted. That the police wanted to arrest Ramjilal, even in a bailable case is the finding by the trial court and we are not pursuaded to take a different view in this matter from that has been taken by the trial court Prosecution witnesses Nos. 2, 5 and 9 being interested and on inimical terms to Ramjilal have been rightly not relied upon by the trial court The trial court also found that there were houses of independent persons around the locality but the prosecution has not been able to produce any such person and, therefore an inference should legally be drawn against it. We are thus in agreement with the findings of the learned trial court that the story of demand of bail given by the witnesses in court is not believable In the occurrence, accused Bhagwandas has also received injuries. It has been admitted by Harnam Singh that he has seen an injury on the head of Bhagwandas caused by Harbans Singh though he stares that it was given in self defence. The injury on the head of Bhagwandas does not find mention in the First Information Report which shows that the prosecution has suppressed the full story. It will thus be seen that there is a dispute about the circumstances in which blows were given The justification given by the defence was that the police tried to arrest Ramjilal accused in a case which was bailable and in legally resisting this unlawful act and blows may have been given The prosecution witnesses in evidence now sought to make out that the bail was demanded from Ramjilal and it was only on his refusal and on making efforts to turn away that he was arrested and the beatings were started. We agree that this version of prosecution witnesses is not believable and it is more correct to say that the fight ensued when the police tried to arrest Ramjilal even in an offence which was bailable. As a matter of fact, according to PW 1, Ramjilal offered bail but it was refused by the police. Further Bhagwandas offered to give bail but instead of accepting it, he was given beating as is clear from the injuries received by him. Thus the accused had their right of self defence of person as Ramjilal was sought to be arrested and Bhagwandas had been given beating by the police in pursuance of their unauthorised act. As the scuffle ensued in these circumstances between the accused party and the police, there is no question of holding the appellant guilty of any offence with which they have been charged. The injuries given to the police are simple which shows that there was no intention of the accused to attempt to murder the police members The involvement by the police with the women of the family of the accused also shows that the police, in order to give cover to their unauthorised action, involved females, who may though normally be present at the house, can not be expected to have participated by giving beatings to police personnel The whole version is so unnatural and is a cr(SIC)de prosecution invention. It may also be seen that PWs 2, 5 and 9 have stated that Shakuntala and Badani hurled stones and bricks at the police party while again the other police witnesses have stated that these women gave beating with 'dandas' to the police persons. Thus the part ascribed to the women is contradictory and cannot be accepted.
4. In the result, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.