Judgment Sadasivan, J. 1. These appeals arise from the conviction and sentence passed in S.C. No. 81 of 1972 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Trivandrum. The accused Chellappan Viswambharan was charged under section 302, Indian Penal Code, for the murder of one Babu alias Sreedharan by stabbing him with a knife at 7-30 p.m. on 4th August, 1972. On an analysis of the evidence and circumstances of the case, learned Judge was persuaded to the view that the act was committed by the accused under grave and sudden provocation and accordingly he has convicted the accused of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code. Dissatisfied with this, the State has filed Crl. Appeal No. 260 of 1973, pressing for a conviction under section 302. Crl. Appeal No. 109 of 1973 is by the accused against the conviction and sentence passed on him. 2. The occurrence took place, as already stated, at 7-30 p.m. on 4th August, 1972 on the public road in front of P.W. 7's shop. Deceased Babu and the accused were moving on inimical terms for some time before the occurrence. One Gangan was involved in a criminal case, and he was released on bail from the Court through Babu's help. Gangan being the accused's enemy, the conduct of Babu in getting him released on bail by Babu, was not liked by the accused. On this matter, there was a wordy quarrel at about 5 p.h. on 4th August, 1972. Later, at about 7-30 p.m. while Babu was proceeding along the lane leading to the road in front of P.W. 7's shop, he was met by the accused, and the latter in a fretful tone asked Babu if he would scold him in case he said that he helped Gangan in getting bail. Babu retorted suitably. Getting himself exasperated, the accused took M.O. 1 a knife from under his waist, and inflicted a stab on Babu which hit him on his chest above the nipple. Babu smarting under pain, pressed his chest with his left hand when the accused pulled back his knife and took to his heels. Babu's brother P.W. 1 happened to come there at the time and see the accused escape from the scene with the knife. Babu smarting under pain, pressed his chest with his left hand when the accused pulled back his knife and took to his heels. Babu's brother P.W. 1 happened to come there at the time and see the accused escape from the scene with the knife. Babu was immediately taken to the General Hospital, Trivandrum in a taxi. Before they reached the hospital, Babu died. P.W. 1 then rushed to the the police station and lodged first information statement. The accused was arrested on 10th August, 1972 at about 3-30 p.m. On the basis of the information supplied by him M.O. 1 knife was recovered from the spot pointed out by him. The accused denying the charge stated that he was in police custody from 4th August, 1972 and was produced before the Magistrate only on 11th August, 1972. On 4th August, 1972, he bad gone to the police station to complain to the police that Babu had inflicted injuries on him, and it was then that he was arrested and placed in police custody. To the learned Sessions Judge the injuries were shown by the accused at the time he was examined under section 342 of the Code. Learned Judge has observed in the judgment that the accused showed him a scar on the inner aspect of the right fore-arm and an abrasion about 2“in length on the left upper chest”. 3. There are difficulties in accepting the prosecution version of the occurrence. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 are stated to be eyewitnesses. Of these, P.W. 3 has turned hostile. P.W. 3 is a person who is running a laundry near the scene of occurrence, and P.W. 2 and 4 according to them saw the occurrence from a nearby house. The name of P.W. 3 as a person who was present near the scene was mentioned by the accused in his 342 statement. P.W. 3 therefore, would have been a more competent witness than the other two, but his evidence somehow, is not helpful to the prosecution. According to P.W. 2, at the time of the occurrence he was present in P.W. 4's house, and they were chatting from the verandah of the house. For what purpose P.W. a had gone to P.W. 4's house was not stated by him. According to P.W. 2, at the time of the occurrence he was present in P.W. 4's house, and they were chatting from the verandah of the house. For what purpose P.W. a had gone to P.W. 4's house was not stated by him. So far as P.W. 4 is concerned, he had no interest in the house where be was stated to have been present at the time. His house is in Nedungad, some distance away from the scene. The house where himself and P.W. 2 happened to be present at the time of the occurrence according to them, belongs to his mother's sister. She is residing there and P.W. 4 evidently had no purpose in going there that night. It is also difficult to believe hat from that house which is some distance away from the place of occurrence, they were able to see the occurrence in that night. 4. These difficulties apart, there are other difficulties which appear to us to be wholly insurmountable. First and foremost is the situation arising from the presence of multiple injuries on the person of the deceased. The consistent case of the prosecution is that only one stab was inflicted by the accused on the person of the deceased, and that hit him on the chest above the nipple. It is also the definite case of the prosecution that this injury was inflicted when both the accused and the deceased were in a standing posture, and after the infliction of the injury the accused made good his escape. In the circumstances, it is startling that the deceased had sustained two other incised wounds and six abrasions. The two incised wounds are injuries Nos. 3 and 7 mentioned in the postmortem certificate and they are: 1. skin-deep incised wound horizontally placed 1.5 × 0.1 cm. 0.5 cm. to the right of injury No. 2; and 2. incised wound skin-deep 1.5 cm. horizontally placed near the inner b order or the left palm. 5. The former was on the chest and the latter on the palm below the wrist. The origin of these injuries is shrouded in mystery. 0.5 cm. to the right of injury No. 2; and 2. incised wound skin-deep 1.5 cm. horizontally placed near the inner b order or the left palm. 5. The former was on the chest and the latter on the palm below the wrist. The origin of these injuries is shrouded in mystery. The injury first mentioned namely, the one on the chest was attempted to be explained by saying that when the accused pulled back the knife from the main injury on the chest, this injury was sustained by the edge of the knife coming into contact with that part of the chest. This suggestion was not approved by the doctor P.W. 9. He stated that the two are two different and separate injuries. In respect of the other injury No. 7 in the certificate, no suggestion worth considering was put forward by the prosecution. When we come to the abrasions, the matter is all the more: difficult. Abrasions are six in number, and they are scattered over different parts of the body like the outer end of the eye, right upper arm, the back right thumb over the back of the left elbow, outer aspect of the right knee etc. The size of the abrasions varies from 0.7 × 0.3 to 1.5 × 1 cm. It is significant that neither the victim nor the assailant had occasion to fall on the ground. The doctor is positive that the abrasions could have been caused during a tussle between the assailant and the victim on the ground and those portions of the body coming into contact with the hard surface. The prosecution tried to explain that the abrasions could have been caused in the course of the victim being boarded in the car to be taken to the hospital. The explanation is that when the injured was pushed into the car, the edge of the door which is pointed, came into contact with those portions of the body where the abrasions were found. This is too grotesque an explanation to be accepted. There is nothing in evidence to show that the door of the car had such a rough or pointed edge. Even then it is surprising that the edge of the door had come simultaneously into contact with these different parts of the body The prosecution, it must be admitted, has failed and failed dismally to explain the injuries. There is nothing in evidence to show that the door of the car had such a rough or pointed edge. Even then it is surprising that the edge of the door had come simultaneously into contact with these different parts of the body The prosecution, it must be admitted, has failed and failed dismally to explain the injuries. The injury sustained by the accused, has also not been explained. The only conclusion that could be drawn from this circumstance is that the prosecution has really not been able to place before Court a full picture of the occurrence. It is possible that several persons had participated in the struggle and in the course of the push and pull, the deceased had fallen on the ground and rolled or scuffled from that lying posture and in the course of such scuffle, these injuries happened to be sustained. When the prosecution shows an inclination to suppress material aspects of the case, the Court will be constrained to disbelieve the entire story. The following observations of the Judicial Commissioner's Court, Goa appearing in Golappa Avana v. State1 are significant: “Where the medical report states that there were four different injuries on the person of the deceased but the eye witnesses depose that the assailant had given only one blow with lathi which could not explain the multiple injuries, there is discordance between the statements of the eye witnesses and the medical evidence and conclusion that springs from that discordance is that the alleged eye witnesses had not seen the occurrence”. In the present case also the situation is exactly the same. Only one stab was inflicted according to the prosecution and after that the assailant fled from the scene. But in the person of the deceased a number of injuries were found. The situation arising from the presence of such multiple injuries has not been explained and the conclusion to be drawn under such circumstances is that the prosecution version of the occurrence is false. The medical evidence has ruled out the possibility of the two incised wounds and the six abrasions found on the person of the deceased having been sustained in the manner suggested by the prosecution. This, according to us, is a sufficient material to discredit the prosecution and acquit the accused. 7. The medical evidence has ruled out the possibility of the two incised wounds and the six abrasions found on the person of the deceased having been sustained in the manner suggested by the prosecution. This, according to us, is a sufficient material to discredit the prosecution and acquit the accused. 7. Learned Judge, it is regrettable, has not understood the significance of the situation arising from the failure of the prosecution to explain these injuries. Learned Judge would observe in paragraph 15 of the Judgment: “Injury No. 2 noted in the post mortam certificate prove beyond doubt that the accused must have inflicted injury No. 2. P.W. 9 the Doctor who conducted the post mortam is positive that injury No 2 is necessarily fatal. Therefore even if the other injuries remain explained that cannot be urged as ground for acquitting the accused, unless the accused has been able to make out that he has inflicted the fatal stab injury — injury No. 2 — on the deceased in exercise of the right of defence of his person, which I am constrained to observe has not been substantiated neither by the 342 statement of the accused nor by the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2”. 8. Learned Judge tries to shift the burden on the accused in respect of the injuries which it need hardly by stated, is wrong and highly objectionable approach. The learned Judge would think that when once one of the injuries is found to be fatal, the origin of the other injuries need not be considered. The burden is entirely on the prosecution to explain how the other injuries were sustained by the deceased, especially when the medical witness is positive that the abrasions could not have been sustained unless the victim had come into contact with hard surface which is possible only by a scuffle on the ground. The prosecution has no case that there was any such scuffle. 9. The result is that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit arising from such a situation must go to the accused. We give him the benefit. The conviction and sentence are hence set aside, and the accused is acquitted. Crl. Appeal No. 109 of 1973 filed by the accused is allowed, and Crl. Appeal No. 260 of T973 filed by the State, is dismissed. Crl. The benefit arising from such a situation must go to the accused. We give him the benefit. The conviction and sentence are hence set aside, and the accused is acquitted. Crl. Appeal No. 109 of 1973 filed by the accused is allowed, and Crl. Appeal No. 260 of T973 filed by the State, is dismissed. Crl. A. No. 109 is allowed and Crl. A. No. 260 is dismissed.