Short Note : 1. In a case where the accused is extensively injured in the same incident in which the prosecution witnesses were also injured, the prosecution witnesses are expected to satisfactorily explain all the circumstances resulting in injuries to the accused and if they do not explain and the plea of the accused is that it was he who was initially assaulted by the prosecution witnesses, then his defence of acting in the exercise of right of private defence becomes not only probable but highly probable also. In the event of such a probability being established from the prosecution evidence itself, the Court trying the accused cannot convict him for the injuries received by all or any of her prosecution witness unless it is found as a tact that the initial aggression was by the accused and the prosecution witnesses acted in self-defence. This is not the case here. On the contrary, the prosecution witnesses have not even attempted to explain the injuries received by the accused Mansingh and only one of the three prosecution witnesses has given a half hearted account of the circumstances resulting in one or two injuries to the accused Mansingh. If this was the attitude of prosecution witnesses, then certainly their evidence must be discarded as false and utterly unreliable. This Court, therefore, is clearly of the view that in this case, the prosecution witnesses have not made a true disclosure of the circumstances in which (PW-3) Raisingh was injured and when that is so the accused Mansingh cannot alone be held guilty of the offence for which he has been convicted by the learned trial Judge. Appeal allowed.