Short Note : The State has preferred an appeal against the acquittal of the respondents for the offences under section 148, 448, 302, 307, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Held : It is now settled law that the High Court in appeal under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has full power to review at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal was founded and to reach the conclusion that upon the evidence the order of acquittal should he reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power unless it be found so expressly stated in the Code, but in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusion upon fact the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to such matters as, (i) the view of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (ii) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused; a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (iii) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and (iv) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge committed a serious error of law in holding that there was free fight between the two groups and the right of private defence of property and person was available to the respondents 1 to 7. In a free fight there can be no right of private defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further erred in basing his findings on the basis of the case diary statements of the prosecution witnesses when the case diary statement can only be used for the purpose of contradicting the prosecution witnesses. The Additional Sessions Judge also erred in not relying on the prosecution witnesses after holding that their evidence has been corroborated. There is further error committed in holding that an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution for not examining independent witnesses when there is nothing on record to show that there were other persons who had actually witnessed the incident and, in fact, statement of prosecution witnesses have been duly corroborated by Kashiram (P.W.21) who is an independent witness and not related to other witnesses. 3. 3. It is true that it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to examine a material witness, particularly when no allegation has been made that, if produced, he would not speak the truth. Not only does an adverse inference arise against the prosecution case from his non-production as a witness in view of illustration (g) to section 114 of the Evidence Act, but the circumstances of his being withheld from the Court casts a serious reflection on the fairness of the trial. In the present case out of the 26 witnesses cited by the prosecution, 23 witnesses have been examined. Only Govind Chamar, who was Harwaha has not been examined. His evidence would have been a mere duplication of other evidence. Thus no material witness has been kept back by the prosecution. Habeeb Mohammed v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1954 SC 51 , Darya Singh and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 328 , Shanker v. State of U.P. AIR 1975 SC 757 , relied on. 4. In a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of the altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences :- (i) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version. (ii) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable. (iii) that in a case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. 5. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses, or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. There may be cases where the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. There may be cases where the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and credit-worthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. Therefore in the present case, the Additional Sessions Judge was, not justified in rejecting the entire prosecution evidence because the prosecution witnesses did not explain the injuries found on the person of some of the respondents. Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 relied on. Appeal allowed.