Short Note : 1. The main question is as to what is the effect of total absence of any explanation by the prosecution of the injuries sustained by appellant No.2 Mst. Phatkunbai caused to her undoubtedly in the same transaction. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State conceded that there is no explanation for these injuries in the prosecution evidence He was also not able to give any cogent explanation for the injuries of Mst. Phatkunbai assuming that they could be explained without any express evidence being adduced for the purpose. It is obvious that the three in juries including the one on the head sustained by Mst. Phatkunbai do require some explanation and if the eye-witnesses have failed to explain the same, then that is yet another infirmity in the prosecution case. In the opinion of this Court, this infirmity in the prosecution case makes it reasonable to draw the inference that the defence version which explains the injuries on the person of appellant No.2 Mst. Phatkunbai as well as on P. W. 1 Satelsingh is more probable and it should for that reason be accepted. Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 relied on. Convictions quashed. Appeal allowed.