Short Note : 1. It is clear that in a situation when the prosecution failed to explain the injuries on the person of an accused, depending on the facts of each case, any of the three results may follow: - (1) That the accused had inflicted the injuries on the members of the prosecution party in exercise of the right of self defence. (2) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (3) It does not affect the prosecution case at all. 2. In view of the above, failure of the prosecution witnesses to explain insignificant and simple injuries on the person of the appellant does not throw any doubt on the prosecution evidence and does not probalise the defence of person; Thus convictions of the two appellants under sections 324 and 323 I.P.C. respectively with sentences thereunder are in order and call for no interference. Bankeylal and others v. State of U.P., AIR 1971 SC 2233 ; Gajendrasingh v. State of U.P., AIR 1975 SC 1703 , State of Gujrat v. Bai Fatima and another, AIR 1975 SC 1478 relied on. Appeal dismissed.