FAIZAN UDDIN, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal, the 3 appellants have challenged their conviction under section 302 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for which each one of them has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge, Seoni in Sessions Trial No. 57 of 1982. ( 2 ) THE deceased Bhagchand was the real brother of appellant No. 3, Moolchand. Appellant No. 1 and appellant No 2, Phoolchand and Dillichand are the sons of appellant No. 3. The house of the appellants and that of the deceased Bhagchand are adjacently situated in village Birholi, police- station An, district Seoni. According to the prosecution, on 30th July, 1982 a hen belonging to the deceased Bhagchand had gone into the Bad; of the appellants and the appellant Moolchand had caught hold of the said hen. Surajlal (P. W. 2) one of the sons of the deceased Bbagchand wilt there and asked for the return of the hen but the appellant No. 3 Moolchand refused to deliver the hen and threatened to beat him. Surajlal (P. W 2) came back to his house. Thereafter, appellant No. 3 Moolchand called his two sons appellants No. 1 and 2 and went to the house of the deceased. It is said that appellants Nos. 1 and 2 were armed with lathis while appellant No. 3 was armed with a Dhawra stick. Appellant Phoolchand enquired from Surajlal (P. W. 2) as to why he was calling his father as a thief and then all the 3 appellants assaulted Surajlal as well as to his brother Bharat (P. W. 4 ). The appellant No. 3 Moolchand caught bold of Bhagchand and then all the 3 appellants assaulted the deceased-appellant with lathis and dhawra sticks as a result of which he fell unconscious. Bhagchand was then shifted to Seoni hospital where be died on 9-8-1982. A report (Et. P-3) of the incident was made by Surajlal (P. W. 2) on the same day at 11. 00 P. M. in the police station An at a distance of about 11 Km. from the place of the incident. ( 3 ) DR. C. K. Mishra (P. W. 5) had medically examined Bhagchand on 31st July, 1982 and as per his report Ex. 00 P. M. in the police station An at a distance of about 11 Km. from the place of the incident. ( 3 ) DR. C. K. Mishra (P. W. 5) had medically examined Bhagchand on 31st July, 1982 and as per his report Ex. P-4 he found one contusion on the left side of frontal region of scalp with abrasion on the left parietal region and a contusion with abrasion of middle of parietal region. There was a lacerated wound on the dorso medial surface of lower one third of left forearm and abrasion on the posterior surface of left elbow. After the death of Bhagchand on 9-8-1982 Dr. Pashine (P. W. 6) performed autopsy over the dead body of deceased Bhagchand and as per his post mortem report (Ex. P-9) found fracture of left temporo parietal bones. There was extra dural haemotoma. The brain and both the lungs were congested. In the opinion of the Doctor, the death was due to coma on account of compression of brain as a result or extra dural haemotoma due to rupture of middle artery. The fracture and rupture was due to heavy blow by the blunt object. In the opinion of the Doctor, the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ( 4 ) DR. Mishra (P. W. 5) had also medically examined Surajlal (P. W. 2) and as per his injury report (Ex. P-5) found a contusion with swelling 2 x 1 on the postero lateral surface of upper one third of left forearm and an abrasion with contusion on the left forearm and faint contusion on the right forearm which were all simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object like lathi. Bharat (P. W. 4) was also examined by Dr. Mishra (P. W. 5) who as per his injury report (Ex. P-6) found abrasion on the right knee and left knee. An abrasion with lacerated wound was also found on the right side of the chest. ( 5 ) ON the memoranda made by appellants Nos. 1 and 3 lathis and Dhawra sticks were seized. The appellants objured their guilt. Appellant No. 2 Dillichand took the plea of alibi whereas appellant No. 3. An abrasion with lacerated wound was also found on the right side of the chest. ( 5 ) ON the memoranda made by appellants Nos. 1 and 3 lathis and Dhawra sticks were seized. The appellants objured their guilt. Appellant No. 2 Dillichand took the plea of alibi whereas appellant No. 3. Moolchand pleaded that he had acted in exercise of his right of private defence as he was assaulted by the deceased Bhagchand and his two sons Surajlal (P. W. 2) and Bharat (P. W. 4 ). The learned trial Judge negatived the plea of defence and convicted the appellants under section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to imprisonment for life against which this appeal has been directed. ( 6 ) AT the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellant No. 1, Phoolchand and appellant No. 3, Moolchand had also sustained injuries during the course of the said incident which have not been explained by the prosecution and, therefore, the same probabilised the defence set up by the appellants that they had assaulted the deceased Bhagchand and Surajlal (P. W. 2) as well as Bharat (P. W. 4) in exercise of right of their private defence. On perusal of the record, we find that there is much substance in this contention. ( 7 ) THERE is no convincing evidence as to whether the appellants or the complainant party were the aggressor. The houses of both the parties were adjacently situated and the incident is said to have taken place in the lane in between the two houses. There is evidence that the appellants Phoolchand and Moolchand had sustained injuries in the same incident. The evidence of Dr. D. K. Mishra (P. W. 5) indicates that on 31st July, 82 he had examined appellants No. 3, Moolchand and as per his report (Ex. P-3) he had found the following injuries on his person: (1) Lacerated wound with haematoma 1 X 1 adjoining and below right parietal eminence. (2) Contusion with abrasion with haemotoma 1 x 1/a, 1/4! X 1/4 1 x 1 on the left parieto occipital region of scalp. (3) Contusion 1/2 x 1/2 adjoining and above left side of cheek. (4) Parietal dislocation of second premplar of left side of lower jaw with signs of laceration and bleeding to adjoining part of gum and socket. (2) Contusion with abrasion with haemotoma 1 x 1/a, 1/4! X 1/4 1 x 1 on the left parieto occipital region of scalp. (3) Contusion 1/2 x 1/2 adjoining and above left side of cheek. (4) Parietal dislocation of second premplar of left side of lower jaw with signs of laceration and bleeding to adjoining part of gum and socket. All other teeth were firm. (5) Contusion lit x 1/a adjoining and below anterior surface of right shoulder. (6) Abrasion 1 x 1/8 on the anterior surface of upper one third of right arm. (7) Lacerated wound 1 x x muscle deep on the dorsum of middle of right index finger. (8) Contusion with abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 x x on the dorsal surface or prosinal phalenges of left index finger. On the same day, that is, on 31st July, 1982 Dr. Mishra (P. W. 5) had also examined appellant No. 1, Phoolchand and as per his report (Ex. P. 4) he found the following injuries:(a) Lacerated wound 2h/2 x x muscle deep on the right side of the frontal region of the scalp. (b) Vertical contusion 51/211 x 1/2 on the middle of left scapular region. (c) He complained of pain in the upper part of right side of chest with no external injury. The injuries were simple in nature. ( 8 ) NONE of the prosecution witnesses have explained as to how the appellants Nos. 1 and 3 sustained these injuries during the course of the same incident. Surajlal (P. W. 2) in Paragraph 20 of his deposition has clearly denied that neither he nor his brother Bharat (P. W. 4) or the deceased Bhagchand had assaulted the appellants. He also stated in same incident that when he reached the police-stalion An to lodge the report, the appellants were present there in the police station. In Paragraph 21 of his deposition he flatly denied that there were any injuries on the person of any of the appellants and stated further that if there were any injuries he had no knowledge about the same. Shaligram (P. W. 3) who is said to be independent eye-witnesses also stated in Paragraph 6 of his deposition that it was wrong to say that appellant No. 3 Moolchand has sustained injury in his head and in his jaw. Shaligram (P. W. 3) who is said to be independent eye-witnesses also stated in Paragraph 6 of his deposition that it was wrong to say that appellant No. 3 Moolchand has sustained injury in his head and in his jaw. Bharat (P. W. 4) also did not explain as to how the appellants sustained the injuries. Jhadu (P. W. 7) eye-witness of the incident stated that whole incident took place in his presence but he did not notice any injury on the person of the appellant, Moolchand. These facts clearly revealed that the witnesses are not making a truthful version of the incident and instead of explaining the injuries sustained by the appellant tried to conceal the fact as to how they received those injuries which were proved by the evidence of Dr. Mishra (P. W. 5 ). In view of these circumstances, in our opinion the defence set up by the appellants is probabilised ( 9 ) IN the case of Lakshmi Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar1 it was observed as under: 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 altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inference: (1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) 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; (3) that in 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. A. I. R. 1968 S. C. 1281 and A. I. R. 1975 SC. 1674 Ref. no. 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. As discussed above the prosecution totally failed to explain the injuries on the person of the appellant No. 3 Moolchand which could not be said to be superfluous and simple. As discussed above the prosecution totally failed to explain the injuries on the person of the appellant No. 3 Moolchand which could not be said to be superfluous and simple. The injuries as detailed in Ex D-3 were on vital part of his body like parietal eminence, parieto occipital region and scalp. There was also parietal dislocation of second premolor of left side of lower law with signs of laceration. From all these facts it clearly turns out that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the persons of the appellants are not telling a truthful story on most material point and their evidence, therefore, becomes doubtful as they suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence. Consequently, the defence version which explains the injury on the person of the accused that they assaulted the complainant party in exercise of their defence of person is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. ( 10 ) ACCORDING to the evidence of Dr. Pashine (P. W. 6) the fracture of the left temporo parietal bone of the deceased Bhagchand was responsible for his death. In this view of the matter it also cannot be said that the appellants had exceeded their right of defence of person while inflicting the said injuries to the deceased Bhagchand. ( 11 ) IN the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with sentence there under is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the offence they were charged with. The appellants be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed. .