JUDGMENT - M.S. RATNAPARKHI, J.:---The appellant who was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No. 120/83 on a charge under section 302 of Indian Penal Code has come up in appeal against that order of conviction and sentence. Initially three accused were charge-sheeted for the charge under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code. Apart from the present appellant (the original accused No. 1), the order two accused were his brother Mujim and father Dilawar. Both of them have been acquitted b the trial Court. The State has not preferred any appeal against that acquittal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief runs as follows :- Sk. Ajim (P.W. I.) along with his sons and wife was staying in Balapeth at Shendurjanaghat in Amravavi District. The deceased Sheikh Babbu was his son. The accused also were staying in the same locality and their house was situated about 200 feet away from the house of Sk. Ajim. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16-6-1983 at about 6 P.M. the accused Nos. 2 and 3 caught the deceased Babbu by both of his hands and the present appellant Sheikh Muntijim stabled him by Bichawa into chest. As a result of his assault the deceased Babbu fell on the ground. Sk. Ajim (P.W. 1) was at that time coming towards his house and he saw this incident. He saw the accused Nos. 2 and 3 catching Sk. Babbu and the accused present appellant stabbing the deceased. He asked them not to do so. But it was without any effect. Sk. Ajim (P.W. 1) rushed to the spot. Some other persons also came there. Sk. Babbu was lifted and taken to Malkapur hospital where he was pronounced dead. Sk. Ajim (P.W. 1) proceeded directly to the Police out-post at Shendurjanaghat and lodged his First Information Report. The offence was registered by the Police Station at Warud on First Information Report and the occurrence report submitted by the outpost. During the investigation, the accused came to be arrested. On due investigation, a charge-sheet has been put up against the accused. 3. The charge was framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. During the course of trial, prosecution examined three eye-witnesses Sk. Ajim (P.W. 1), Abdul Ajij (P.W. 2) and Abdul Bashir (P.W. 3). During the investigation, the accused came to be arrested. On due investigation, a charge-sheet has been put up against the accused. 3. The charge was framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. During the course of trial, prosecution examined three eye-witnesses Sk. Ajim (P.W. 1), Abdul Ajij (P.W. 2) and Abdul Bashir (P.W. 3). The Panchas on the spot panchanama, inquest panchanama, the different seizures, were also examined. The Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased was also examined. On considering the whole evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the evidence of Sk. Ajim (P.W. 1), Abdul Ajij (P.W. 2) and Abdul Bashir (P.W. 3). coupled with the circumstantial evidence was enough to lead to the conclusion that the accused (the present appellant ) did inflict a stab injury on the chest of the deceased Sk. Babbu. The appellant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. The other two accused came to be acquitted. 4. Mr. Agrawal, the learned Advocate for the accused appellant strenuously urged before us that the finding that the present appellant caused the death of the deceased was itself wrong and based on infirm evidence. It was also his contention that all the three accused along with Jinnatbi (the mother of the appellant ) also received injuries which were not superficial. The prosecution has failed to explain these injuries. It was urged on behalf of the accused that the prosecution has by examining Sk. Ajim (P.W. I), Abdul Ajij (P.W. 2) and Abdul Bashir (P.W. 3.) established only the part of the story, whereas the real part of the story has not at all been brought on record. He invited our attention to the defence of the accused that the deceased along with Abdul Ajij (P.W. 2.) and Abdul Bashir (P.W. 3) and other persons came to his house with the weapons like sticks, iron bars and such other weapons and started assaulting the appellant, his father, mother and brother. The assault was so serious that the father Dilawar suffered two fractures, the mother suffered a contused lacerated wound on the scalp, the appellant suffered a contused lacerated wound up on the head, whereas the other brother also suffered the injuries. The assault was so serious that the father Dilawar suffered two fractures, the mother suffered a contused lacerated wound on the scalp, the appellant suffered a contused lacerated wound up on the head, whereas the other brother also suffered the injuries. Seeing that the assault was so serious and there being reasonable grounds for apprehension of a more serious assault to came, even the appellant used the weapon. The prosecution suffers from two inherent infirmities. Firstly, that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the offence, and secondly, the injuries on the persons of the accused, his father, brother and mother remained unexplained. In these circumstances, according to him, prosecution cannot be held to have established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, it is fit case for acquittal. 5. We were taken through the evidence led by the prosecution quite extensively. Sheikh Ajim (P.W. 1) happens to be father of the deceased. The first and the foremost point which arises for consideration in this case is the spot of the incident. Unfortunately, in this case, the prosecution has not taken any paints to prepare any map or sketch showing the exact spot. We are, therefore, required to locate the spot with as much of clarity as possible and that too on a very vague evidence. Sk. Ajim (P.W. 1.) states that his house is situated in Balapeth Mohella in one corner and the house of accused is situated at the distance of about 200 feet to the east of his house. There is a masjid having a length of about 50 feet and this masjid is situated to the west of the house of the accused. There is a small lane of about 11/2 feet intervening between the masjid and the house of the accused. This description has been given by the witness in relation to the directions. At times the witness has stated that the incident occurred behind the masjid. From this point of view also, the spot shall have to be considered. The witness deposed that in front of the masjid there is a river flowing from north to south. If it is so, then the river must necessarily flow from the west to the masjid. The back side of the masjid would, therefore, be to the east of the masjid. The witness deposed that in front of the masjid there is a river flowing from north to south. If it is so, then the river must necessarily flow from the west to the masjid. The back side of the masjid would, therefore, be to the east of the masjid. It is exactly at the east of the masjid that the house of the accused is located. Coming to the testimony of Sk. Ajim (P.W. 1), he deposed that he tethered his bullocks in the cattle shed beyond the river and while he was coming back to his house, he came behind the masjid. There saw the accused Mujim and Sk. Dilawar catching both the hands of Sk. Baboo. He protested and rebuked them. At this stage, according to the witness, Sk. Muntijim arrived there from his house and uttered the words “Sk. Baboo had assaulted my younger brother and that he would take revenge upon him”. Thereupon, according to the witness, the accused appellant took out a Bichawa and thrusted it into the left side chest of Sk. Baboo from front side. According to him, only one blow was given on the chest of Baboo. Thereafter Munim and Sk. Dilawar released Baboo. He fell on the road and uttered the words “ej x;k ej x;k” He rushed to the spot and caught hold of the appellant gave a jerk and took to his heels. According to him, Ajij Gafar Bashir watched this incident. He further states that Baboo had received a bleeding injury on the left nipple. The wound was profusely bleeding. He pressed the injury by his right palm. Baboo was unconscious and he was breathing slowly. He removed the injured to Shendurjana Ghat Hospital, Gaffar, Ajij and Bashir accompanied him. The doctor examined Baboo and declared him dead. From the hospital, he immediately rushed to the Police Station at Shendurjana Ghat (outpost) and lodged his First Information Report which can be found at Ex. 10. 6. It is clear from the First Information Report that the names of all the three accused are disclosed. However, the First Information Report states that all the three accused were beating Baboo. This appears to be a departure from the substantive testimony where he says that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 had only caught hold of Baboo. 10. 6. It is clear from the First Information Report that the names of all the three accused are disclosed. However, the First Information Report states that all the three accused were beating Baboo. This appears to be a departure from the substantive testimony where he says that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 had only caught hold of Baboo. Another interesting feature in the first information report is that he mentions the names of Abdul Ajij, Abdul Gaffar, Abdul Bashir and Maksud Ahemad as the witnesses who have seen the incident. Out of these four persons, the prosecution has selected only Abdul Ajij (P.W. 2.) and Sk. Bashir (P.W. 3). The other two are not examined. The cross-examination of this witness shows that he had omitted to state before the police that accused Nos. 2 and 3 merely caught the deceased and did not participate in the Maramari. This omission contradicts his substantive testimony in the witness box. He feigns ignorance as to whether Jinatbi (mother of the appellant ), Sk. Mujim (brother of the appellant ) and the appellant himself had any injuries. He very specifically states that the Marpit took place on the road on the backside of masjid . He also states that there is open space behind masjid and one road passes to the open space. The house of Dilawar is situated to the east of masijid and behind the house of Dilawar is the cattle shed. His evidence thus establishes that whatever incident occurred, was nearer to the house of the accused, may it was just at the corner of the house of the accused. The house of the complainant is far away from there to the opposite side. In his cross-examination he states that Sk. Ajij (P.W. 2) is the cousin of the deceased Baboo. It is also in his testimony that Sk. Bashir (P.W. 3) is a close relation of the deceased, inasmuch as the wife of Sk. Bashir and his wife Sk. Jalil (the brother of the deceased) are real sisters. 7. In this context, we have now to refer to the testimony of Abdul Ajij (P.W. 2). He states that on the date of the incident between 6 and 6.30 P.M. he was passing by the road. Abdul Gaffar and Abdul Bashir were behind him. While proceeding, he saw Mujim, Sk. Dilawar and the present appellant scuffling with Sk. Baboo. 7. In this context, we have now to refer to the testimony of Abdul Ajij (P.W. 2). He states that on the date of the incident between 6 and 6.30 P.M. he was passing by the road. Abdul Gaffar and Abdul Bashir were behind him. While proceeding, he saw Mujim, Sk. Dilawar and the present appellant scuffling with Sk. Baboo. According to him, accused Nos. 1 to 3 were assaulting Sk. Baboo by fists and kicks. Meanwhile Sk. Ajim (P.W. 1) came there from the bus stand side. He rebuked the accused. Thereupon, the present appellant whipped out a Bichawa and thrusted it into the left side chest of the deceased. On receiving this single blow, deceased fell down and uttered the words “ej x;k ej x;k”. According to him, Sk. Ajim caught hands of the accused, but the accused gave a jerk and took to his heels. He states that he could not intervene in the quarrel as he was at a distance of about 10 to 16 feet from the assault of victim. 8. Sk. Bashir (P.W. 3) also gave a similar story. The learned Additional Sessions Judge appears to be very much impressed with the testimony of these three witnesses who also deposed uniformally that before the final assault the appellant uttered the words “you have assaulted my brother and I would kill you”. Thus, according to the prosecution there was a motive, inasmuch as prior to the incident the deceased had slapped the brother of the appellant. The question which arises at this stage is whether the testimony of these three witnesses is reliable and it contains 100 per cent truth. At this stage, it may be pointed out that the prosecution has come up with the story that prior to the incident at about 4 P.M. while the youngest son of accused No. 3 and the youngest brother of the deceased were playing pebbles, there was a quarrel between them. The deceased came at the spot and he slapped the brother of the accused appellant. According to the prosecution, this was the motive which made the appellant to take revenge on the deceased and this intention according to the prosecution culminated into the murder of the deceased at the hands of the accused appellant. There is no much dispute at this stage regarding the fact that deceased assailant suffered the injuries. According to the prosecution, this was the motive which made the appellant to take revenge on the deceased and this intention according to the prosecution culminated into the murder of the deceased at the hands of the accused appellant. There is no much dispute at this stage regarding the fact that deceased assailant suffered the injuries. The deceased fell on the ground and when he was taken to hospital, the doctor found him dead. The nexus between the inquiry and the death is therefore not difficult to accept. 9. It was strenuously urged by Mr. Agrawal the learned Advocate for the appellant, that the prosecution has concealed the very genesis of the real incident. In support of his argument, Mr. Agrawal strenuously urged before us that he present appellant, his father and two brothers sustained injuries and some of the injuries were very serious. This incident occurred at about 6 or 6.30 P.M. on 16-6-1983. We have the testimony of Dr. Baban Sable (P.W. 9) at Ex. 25. It appears that on the very day at about 9.30 P.M. Sk. Dilawar (Original accused No. 3) was examined by him and he found: (1) Contused swelling on the dorsal side of right forearm; (2) Contused swelling on the left lateral side of the scalp 4" above the left ear; (3) Contused swelling on the dorsal side of the left hand. Not only that, but he was, referred to Irwin Hospital, Amravati for further examination, and the evidence shows that on X-ray examination two fractures were noticed one at the end of the right radius, and second on the 8th rib. These injuries according to the doctor must have been caused by hard and blunt object. On the same day at about 10 P.M. he examined Jinnatbi w/o. Sheikh Dilawar and noticed one lacerated wound on the upper side of scalp vertical of size 1"x½x1/8" Dr. Sable also examined Sk. Mujim (original accused No. 2) and found lacerated wound on the right lateral side of the scalp, 6" above the right ear admeasuring 2"x1/2"x1/8" and two abrasions with contusions on the front side of the chest. All these injuries are testified by exhibits 27, 28 and 29. This evidence shows that there were injuries on the persons of the accused also and these injuries were caused within 24 hours according to the opinion of the doctor. 10. All these injuries are testified by exhibits 27, 28 and 29. This evidence shows that there were injuries on the persons of the accused also and these injuries were caused within 24 hours according to the opinion of the doctor. 10. The injuries on the accused, including the present appellant were in fact in existence. It is not the case of the prosecution that these injuries were not in existence at the time of the occurrence. On the other hand, the prosecution witnesses feigned ignorance of these injuries. Two prosecution witnesses have half heartedly stated before the Court that after the assault, the accused ran away and tumbled down, thereby they suggest that these injuries were caused after the assault. But this explanation is clearly afterthought, inasmuch as they did not refer to these injuries when their statements were recorded by the police. The accused have stated in their examination that these injuries were caused by the deceased and Abdul Ajij (P.W. 2) and Abdul Bashir (P.W. 3) when they had attacked them. In absence of any evidence to the contrary, it has to be held that these injuries were caused during the course of the incident with the accused. 11. Once the injuries are established, then it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to explain how the accused sustained these injuries. The Investigating Officer knew on the very night, immediately after he recorded the First Information Report that he accused also had sustained the injuries. It was obligatory on his part to investigate into this aspect of the case and bring out the real facts before the Court. Unfortunately, the Investigating Officer has not moved in this direction. He acted as if thinking that he had absolutely no concern with the injuries of the accused and that it is not an important aspect during the investigation of this case. The prosecution has been more than unfair in this case, particularly when they did not examine Dr. Khandelkar who had obtained X-ray of Dilawar. He found two fractures, one at the end of right radius and the other on the 8th rib. The prosecution did not show the fairness by examining this doctor. The accused had to summon this doctor and establish the factum of these fractures. This doctor has been examined as D.W. 1 in this case. 12. He found two fractures, one at the end of right radius and the other on the 8th rib. The prosecution did not show the fairness by examining this doctor. The accused had to summon this doctor and establish the factum of these fractures. This doctor has been examined as D.W. 1 in this case. 12. It is thus a case where the accused have sustained the injuries near about the time of incident. The injuries were not superficial, inasmuch as there was a contused lacerated wound on the head of Jinatbi, a contused lacerated wound over the scalp of Mujim and two fractures accompanied with external injuries on the person of Dilawar. Dilawar's injuries consisting of these fractures wee grievous injuries within the meaning of Indian Penal Code. By no stretch of imagination, can they be called as superficial or minor injuries. This Dilawar is the father of the appellant, Jinatbi is the mother of the appellant, whereas Mujim is the brother of the appellant. Interestingly enough, Dilawar and Mujim were roped as co-accused along with the present appellant under the charge of murder and still their injuries were not explained by the prosecution. 13. In (Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar)1, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2263, the Supreme Court observed relying upon A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1281. "It seems to us that 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 form which the Court can draw the following inferences: (1) That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the 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.” The Supreme Court further observed, “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”. 14. 14. A caution was sounded by observing; “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 creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. 15. The principle has been reiterated in (Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan)2, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1010. “It is true that where serious injuries are found on the person of the accused, as a principle of appreciation of evidence, it becomes obligatory on the prosecution to explain the injuries, so as to satisfy the Curt as to the circumstances under which the occurrence originated. But before this obligation is placed on the prosecution, two conditions must be satisfied : 1. that the injuries on the person of the accused must be very serious and severe and not superficial; 2. that it must be shown that these injuries must have been caused at the time of the occurrence in question”. Applying the same principles, what we find from record is as follows : (1) That nearabout the time of incident, the appellant , his father, mother and brother also sustained injuries. The injuries of the father were grievous, inasmuch as he suffered two fractures. The injuries of the remaining two persons were not superficial, inasmuch as there were contused lacerated wounds. Laceration makes all the difference, inasmuch as it suggest the tear of the skin. (2) None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution throws any light on the injuries. On the other hand Sk. Ajim (P.W. 1) feigns ignorance regarding the injuries of these persons, though within hours they are occurred. These injuries were seen by the doctor. Abdul Ajij (P.W. 2) suggests in para 4 of has deposition that after the stabbing the accused Nos. 1 to 3 ran away to the lane. He further states that while running through the lane, Sk. Dilawar had a fall. He gives the description of the fall when be states in para 5 of his deposition that Sk. Dilawar fell in the lane with his face downwards. It is suggested by him that the injuries of Sk. 1 to 3 ran away to the lane. He further states that while running through the lane, Sk. Dilawar had a fall. He gives the description of the fall when be states in para 5 of his deposition that Sk. Dilawar fell in the lane with his face downwards. It is suggested by him that the injuries of Sk. Dilawar might have been caused by this fall. Regarding the injuries of other persons he feigns ignorance in para 6 of his deposition. He was confronted with the omission, inasmuch as the disclosure of fall of Dilawar while running was not made before the police. But he had no explanation to offer. Sk. Bashir, on the other hand states that after the assault, accused Nos. 1 to 3 ran to a lane. Meanwhile the old woman-wife of Sk. Dilawar came from the opposite direction through a lane. She bumped upon Sk. Dilawar. He states that the old women also fell in the lane. This story of bumping down of Jinatbi is conspicuously absent when the first disclosure was made by this witness to the police on the next morning. It is clearly an afterthought. Thus, what we find in this case is that the prosecution witnesses initially feigned ignorance, Then two of them tried to give an explanation regarding the injuries sustained by Dilawar and Jinatbi. That explanation is too lame to be accepted. On the other hand, this explanation is unreasonable, particularly when we find that Dilawar and Jinatbi had injuries on different parts of the body which cannot be caused by one fall. Thus, the explanation is inconsistent with the circumstances established on record. Over and above the explanation of the injuries of Sk. Mujim is not at all coming. Thus, this is a case where the witnesses are feigning ignorance. After some time they tried to give some explanation which in the circumstances of the case is not acceptable. When the law says that the prosecution in under obligation to explain the injuries, it means that it is the duty of the prosecution to give plausible explanation compatible with the circumstances established in the case. A false explanation is no explanation in the eye of law. The witness Sk. Ajim (P.W. 1), Abdul Ajij (P.W. 2) and Abdul Bashir (P.W. 3) are closely interrelated. Sk. A false explanation is no explanation in the eye of law. The witness Sk. Ajim (P.W. 1), Abdul Ajij (P.W. 2) and Abdul Bashir (P.W. 3) are closely interrelated. Sk. Ajim (P.W. 1) is the father of the deceased, whereas Abdul Ajim (P.W. 2) and Abdul Bashir (P.W. 3) are the close relations of the deceased. Their evidence shows that they either know only the part of the whole and they do not know the whole. Interestingly enough Sk. Ajim (P.W. 1) had given the names of two more persons as eye witnesses in his First Information Report. But those independent witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution. (3) It is well established on record that when Sk. Ajim (P.W. 1) went to the police station to report the matter, the accused No. 2 Sk. Mujim was already there. He had the injury over his head. Sk. Ajim P.W. 1) admits that when he reached the outpost, the accused No. 2 was already there. It was urged by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that accused No. 2 has not given any report regarding this matter. We fail to appreciate this argument. When Sk. Mujim went to the police station with the injury on his head, it can be reasonably said that he did not go there to chit-chat with the officers. It is in the evidence of Sk. Ajim (P.W. 1) himself that when he reported about the death of his son to the police, the police asked Mujim to sit there and all these people left the outpost. In their examination the accused have stated that they had directed Mujim to give the report of the incident to the police. It means that Mujim had been to the police station to report the matter, but the officer-in-charge had no curtsy to record his report. He had not even the curtsy of asking him as to why he had come. It is also interesting to note at this stage that in the First Information Report recorded by Sk. Ajim (P.W. 10) Mujim was named as one of the assailants. Thus, though the accused was before the police and though the accused had an injury, the police officer did not think it necessary to question the witness and to record the statement. (4) The accused have put up a very plausible story before the Court. Ajim (P.W. 10) Mujim was named as one of the assailants. Thus, though the accused was before the police and though the accused had an injury, the police officer did not think it necessary to question the witness and to record the statement. (4) The accused have put up a very plausible story before the Court. The present appellant in his examination under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, has stated that the prosecution witnesses are the relatives of the deceased. He further stated before the Court that Sk. Baboo had assaulted his father with iron rod on his right hand. Sk. Ajim gave stick blow. Sk. Baboo again gave iron rod blow on the head of Dilawar as a result of which Dilawar fell unconscious. It is true that he has restricted his say to the assault on his father. We have gone through the examination of other two accused (since acquitted) and each of them have told before the Court that they were also assaulted by the accused. They have also stated that Jinatbi was also assaulted by the accused. 16. At this stage, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor strenuously urged before us that the statements which the accused have given in their examination under section 313 cannot be accepted as a gospal truth, inasmuch as it is not a statement on oath. As far as this proposition is concerned, there can be no dispute. But when the learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged before us that it was obligatory on the part of the accused to lead cogent and satisfactory evidence establishing the defence taken by the accused, we were unable to accept that argument. As a matter of fact, in view of the principles laid down in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2263, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to explain the injuries of the accused. The accused may not lead any substantive evidence in support of the story that they have put in. They might not examine any witnesses in support of the same. If from the circumstances established on record, the defence put up by the accused is found consistent and plausible, it is enough to discharge their burden. They do not stand on the same footing with the prosecution when the prosecution is called upon to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. If from the circumstances established on record, the defence put up by the accused is found consistent and plausible, it is enough to discharge their burden. They do not stand on the same footing with the prosecution when the prosecution is called upon to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The preponderance of probabilities and the acceptability of the defence is enough to discharge their burden. It is futile to say that when the accused raises any defence, he has to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt and that too by positive evidence. 17. If on the background of the circumstances enumerated above, we examine this case, we do find that the injuries suffered by the accused and Jinatbi remained unexplained by the prosecution witnesses. The story that these injuries might have been caused by fall had to be discounted at its very face, because it is inconsistent with the circumstances. There must be something which led to these injuries. What that some thing is, has not been explained by the prosecution, though it owed an obligation to explain. The accused are coming with a case which explains their injuries. That case is not contradicted by the prosecution because the prosecution witnesses do not know the real genesis of the offence. The real genesis furnished by the accused is self-explanatory of the injuries suffered by them and there is nothing on record to reject that genesis. In these circumstances, one of the plausible inferences is that when the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused, the defence version suggested by them can be accepted, particularly when the prosecution has not led any evidence to contradict that piece of evidence. Looking from this angle, it is more or less an admitted position that at about 4 P.M. there was a minor quarrel between the youngest brother of the present appellant and the youngest brother of the deceased. There is also evidence that the deceased slapped the brother of the appellant and the quarrel subsided. Nothing happened thereafter. Now the accused are coming with a case that the deceased and Abdul Ajij (P.W. 2) and Abdul Bashir (P.W. 3) and some other persons came to his house with iron bars and sticks in their hands and they started assaulting Mujim, Jinatbee and Sk. Dilawar. Nothing happened thereafter. Now the accused are coming with a case that the deceased and Abdul Ajij (P.W. 2) and Abdul Bashir (P.W. 3) and some other persons came to his house with iron bars and sticks in their hands and they started assaulting Mujim, Jinatbee and Sk. Dilawar. It is not that the accused have raised this defence only at the time of their examination under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. Each and every eye-witnesses of the prosecution has been put suggestions to this end. Abdul Ajij (P.W. 2) and Abdul Bashir (P.W. 3) have been specifically asked that they came there with the weapons in hand and assaulted Jinatbee. Dilawar and Sk. Mujim. It is true that they have denied this. This suggestion or the defence of the accused may not be supported with any positive evidence of the defence witnesses. But there is circumstantial evidence to show that this story has definitely the germs of truth. From this point of view, a spot of incident assumes a considerable importance. We have observed in the earlier part of the judgement that it shall have our endeavour to locate this spot with in as much as of certainty as possible because the evidence on that point is more than vague. To repeat once again, the house of the accused and the masjid are adjacent to each other. They are separated only by a lane of about ½ feet width. The house of deceased was at a distance of about 200 feet at the opposite side i.e. to the west. The incident is alleged to have taken place behind the masjid. Even assuming this to be correct the spot of incident has proximity (in terms of distance) with the house of the accused. The suggestion has been made that Dilawar, after the assault, was lying just at the gate of the cattle shed. In any case, it can be reasonably said that the incident occurred near about the house of the accused (and far away from the house of the deceased) (which is at a far distance at the opposite side). If the spot of incident is located, then the matter becomes crystal clear. The first question that arises is what was the necessity for the deceased and his associates to come to or near the house of the deceased. If the spot of incident is located, then the matter becomes crystal clear. The first question that arises is what was the necessity for the deceased and his associates to come to or near the house of the deceased. The only explanation to this is that they wanted to take revenge on the appellant and the inmates of his house, because the brother of the deceased was assaulted. Otherwise, there is no explanation. Thus, the very fact that the incident occurred near about the house of the accused is a pointer to the fact that these persons came near the house of the accused. Other part of the defence that these persons came with iron pipes and sticks also gets corroboration from the injuries that these three or four persons suffered. These injuries could not be possible by a single fall, because each of the injured had injuries on different parts of the body. It, therefore, suggests that there must have been an assault. Thirdly, Sk. Mujim who is one of the injured goes to the police station with an injury on his head to report the matter, but no courtesy has been shown by the investigating machinery to question him and to record his statement. These three circumstances taken together, according to us, make the defence put up by the accused more cogent and acceptable, particularly when there is nothing coming from the side of the prosecution to contradict it. 18. Mr. H. Ahmed, urged before us that it would be necessary in the circumstances to find out as to who was the aggressor. We do not find it necessary at all. The fact as to who was the aggressor is not germane to the adjudications of this case. The point germane for adjudication is only one and that is whether the defence suggested by the accused is plausible or not. If that defence is plausible then it has to be accepted, particularly when the prosecution otherwise is unable to explain the injuries for the accused. The injuries suffered by Dilawar were grievous injuries. The injuries of Jinatbi and Mujim were not superficial injuries. They sustained the contused lacerated wounds and that too on a very vital part of the body. These injuries came to be inflicted, at the time of the incident. The injuries suffered by Dilawar were grievous injuries. The injuries of Jinatbi and Mujim were not superficial injuries. They sustained the contused lacerated wounds and that too on a very vital part of the body. These injuries came to be inflicted, at the time of the incident. These two circumstances taken together take this case out of the realm of the warning sounded by the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2263 (supra). 19. There is thus a good scope for coming to the conclusion that the witnesses Sk. Ajim (P.W. 1), Abdul Ajij (P.W. 2) and Abdul Bashir (P.W. 3) examined by the prosecution are lying on the material points when they do not open their mouth as far as genesis of the case is concerned. They are also interested, inasmuch as they are the close relations of the deceased. This fact becomes very glaring on the background that in his First Information Report Sk. Ajim (P.W. 1) has referred to the name of two independent witnesses who had witnessed the incident but they have not been examined. The investigating machinery has shown all the callousness by not showing a courtesy to question Sk. Mujim, though he was pointed out as one of the culprits in the First Information Report. The prosecution machinery has been more than unjust and unfair when they refused to examine Dr. Khandelkar (P.W. 1) for establishing the grievous injuries sustained by Sk. Dilwar, (the father of the appellant). The accused had to summon this doctor and examine him as their defence witness giving the prosecution the opportunity to cross-examine him. 20. Taking into consideration all these circumstances, we have absolutely no doubt in our mind that the prosecution, in failing to explain the injuries on the accused have legitimately invited three inferences pointed out in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2263 (supra). The circumstances of this case (which we have discussed in details) justify all these three inferences. The inferences that the witness are lying on material point is justifiable particularly in view of the fact that the witnesses are close- relations of the deceased and was as such interested. The two independent witnesses named in the First Information Report have been left out. Another inference that the prosecution has concealed the very genesis of the occurrence is more than justified in these circumstances discussed above. The two independent witnesses named in the First Information Report have been left out. Another inference that the prosecution has concealed the very genesis of the occurrence is more than justified in these circumstances discussed above. The third inference, that the defence put up by the accused must be held as acceptable is also permissible. In as much as the accused have given a plausible story which explains their injuries and that story remains uncontroverted by the prosecution evidence. Not only that, but that story gets strength from the circumstance that the incident occurred near about the house of the accused. 21. Looking to the broad spectrum, it appears that there has been a free for all assault when the deceased and his associates started assaulting Sk. Dilawar, Jinatbi and Mujim. The assault was so grave and the injuries suffered were serious. There was every apprehension that further severe injuries may be caused. In these circumstances, if the appellant whips out a knife and causes an injury to the deceased, we do not think that there is any offence made out under section 302 Indian Penal Code. The case would definitely fall within the four corners of section 100 of Indian penal Code. It was urged by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the injury inflicted to the deceased was far more harsher than the injuries suffered by the relations of the appellant. What we have to consider at this stage is the mental state in which the appellant was placed at that particular time. His old mother and father were assaulted mercilessly, as a result of which the father suffered two fractures. The mother also suffered serious injury on the head. Brother also suffered the similar injury. The assault was still continuing. The appellant is not expected to have a golden scale in his hand and to weigh the apprehension vis-à-vis the force to be used. It is interesting to note at this stage that the father of the appellant did sustain two fractures which amount to grievous hurt. To ward of the further danger, the appellant was entitled to use force which may even cause death. If in such circumstances, the appellant has whipped out the weapon and caused injuries to the deceased, we think that the act on the part of the appellant would be justified under section 100. To ward of the further danger, the appellant was entitled to use force which may even cause death. If in such circumstances, the appellant has whipped out the weapon and caused injuries to the deceased, we think that the act on the part of the appellant would be justified under section 100. It is no use saying, merely academically that the force used was too much vis-à-vis the contemplated apprehension. The apprehension was definitely there. The apprehension was strengthened by the injuries already inflicted. There was a continued apprehension of still graver injuries. The case would, therefore, fall within the four corners of section 100 of Indian Penal Code. 22. It is thus a case where the prosecution witnesses made a conscious effort of concealing the real genesis of the case. To that extent, the evidence relied by the prosecution cannot be called as acceptable. It is true that in addition to the ocular testimony, the prosecution had also led some evidence regarding the discovery of the weapon. The prosecution has also led evidence that some clothes were seized from the different accused and blood group 'O' was found thereon. Interestingly enough, the Chemical Analyser has shown that the blood flowing from the veins of accused Nos. 2 and 3 belong to 'O' group. Thus, this circumstance cannot be called as an incriminating circumstance. The circumstance that the appellant made a discovery, also loses its value in view of our finding that the prosecution has supperessed the real genesis of the offence. 23. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, appears to have been much impressed by the ocular testimony of Sk. Ajim (P.W. 1), Abdul Ajij (P.W. 2) and Abdul Bashir (P.W. 3). We do not agree with the same and we do think that there are inherent infirmities in the ocular testimony which we have discussed so far in the preceding paragraphs. The trial Court has also found that the defence raised by the accused was an after thought. From paragraph 35 of the judgement of the trial Court, it appears that the Court took a view that it was difficult to hold the deceased and Abdul Ajij (P.W. 2) and Abdul Bashir (P.W. 3) and others as aggressors. The trial Court also observed that it was not specifically pleaded by the accused that the appellant stabbed the deceased only with a view to save the life of his father. The trial Court also observed that it was not specifically pleaded by the accused that the appellant stabbed the deceased only with a view to save the life of his father. These considerations or observations in our opinion are not very material. The position remains that the father, mother and the brother of the appellant were subjected to assault and during that assault the father suffered a grievous injury. The appellant as a son of a father had every right to defend the person of his father, and it is irrespective of the fact whether the appellant sustained any injuries or not. Even though the appellant has not sustained any injuries, still he was justified in warding of the danger against his father, particularly when the danger so posed had a very high potentiality of even killing his father. The right of private defence is available not only to the person who is facing the danger, but also to a person who is seeing others facing the dangers of high potentiality. Here is a son who is seeing with his own eyes an assault of very serious nature on his father. He has a right to defend his father irrespective of the fact whether he sustains any injuries or not. The trial Court was not justified incoming to the conclusion that either the appellant had no right of private defence or that he exceeded the right by inflicting severe injury. To repeat it once again, the appellant was never expected to sit quietly with a golden scale in his hand to weigh the apprehension vis-à-vis danger to his father. If there was a justifiable apprehension in his mind that his father is being subjected to murderous assault, then he is entitled to use that much force which may even kill the aggressor. 24. In our opinion, therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the charge under section 302, Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The appeal deserves to be allowed. The order of conviction and sentence is quashed. The appellant stands acquitted. He shall be set at liberty forthwith. Order accordingly. -----