B. M. LAL, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT Rajkumar Gudda stands convicted under Sections 307 and 326, I. P. C. and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and fine Rs. 3,000/- or in default to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and fine Rs. 3,000/- or in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year respectively. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. ( 2 ) INITIALLY, the appellant Rajkumar alongwith one Ajju Ajay Kumar was prosecuted under Sections 307, 326, 324 read with Section 34 I. P. C. ; but while awarding conviction to this appellant - Rajkumar, co-accused Ajju Ajay Kumar was acquitted. ( 3 ) IN short, the prosecution case is that on 28-3-1987 in village Bichhia Har, in the evening hours, P. W. 9 Dhannulal was working in his field, adjacent to that of Dhannulal. P. W. 8 Bhamma Bai raised alarm whereupon P. W. 9 Dhannulal reached there and found that P. W. 10 Dhaniram was inflicted blows with farsha and hallam by the accused persons viz. Rajkumar and Ajay Kumar. Both were armed withfarsha and hallam and their presence was witnessed by Dhannulal. The prosecution case further is that Dhannulal too was inflicted farsha blow by Rajkumar and Ajju the co-accused is alleged to have hurled ballam at him. Bhamma Bai was also injured. Hearing the shouts, other villagers reached the spot. The injured persons were taken to the hospital in a tractor and First Information Report (Ex. p. 22) was lodged. It is contended that name of Ajju Ajay Kumar docs not find place therein. Dhaniram was medically examined and as per medical report (Ex. p. 17) the following injuries were found on his person: (1) Incised wound right eyebrow size 2. 5 cm. x. 1 cm. x 1 cm. margin clean but regular obliquely, placed, (2) Incised wound left maxillary region extending from left angle of mouth to left zygomalic eminence size 10 cm. x. 2 cm. Wound communicating with oral cavity margins, clean cut. Bleading present. Suspected fracture of left upper jaw. Advised x-ray. (3) Incised wound left mandibular region extending from a point 1. 5 cm. below lapule of left ear to sub manibular region Rt. side size 12 cm. x. 4 cm. x 4 cm. margin clean at, regular. x. 2 cm. Wound communicating with oral cavity margins, clean cut. Bleading present. Suspected fracture of left upper jaw. Advised x-ray. (3) Incised wound left mandibular region extending from a point 1. 5 cm. below lapule of left ear to sub manibular region Rt. side size 12 cm. x. 4 cm. x 4 cm. margin clean at, regular. Bleeding present, clinically suspected fracture of left mandible, failing effect to left side of wound. Advised x-ray. (4) Incised wound extending from left side of lower lip across the din to sub mandibular region Right size 10 cm. x 2 cm. x 1. 5 cm. , margin clean cut regular. The aforesaid injuries, in the opinion of the doctor, were grievous in nature. Dhaniram was also shifted to Medical College Hospital, Jabalpur, and the medical reports are Ex. p. 14 and Ex. p. 21. Dhannu was also medically examined and his medical report is Ex. p. 16. On 30-3-1987, at the instance of accused Rajkumar a memorandum was recorded and farsha (Art. F) was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P. 2. On these facts the accused persons were charge-sheeted for the alleged offences, as above. ( 4 ) THE accused abjured their guilt. Rajkumar, the appellant, in his examination submitted that he was in possession of the agricultural field being an occupancy tenant. The crop was sown by him. However, due to enmity he has been falsely implicated by Dhaniram and Dhannulal. ( 5 ) CO-ACCUSED Ajju pleaded alibi and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. ( 6 ) THE Trial Court, however, acquitting the co-accused Ajju alias Ajay Kumar convicted the appellant Raj Kumar for the offences as stated above, against which this appeal has been filed. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the conviction of the appellant under Sections 307 and 326, I. P. C. simultaneously is against the express provisions of Section 71, I. P. C. , as the alleged injuries were caused in one series of acts in the same transaction and therefore, awarding conviction under Sections 307 and 326, I. P. C. is bad in law. ( 8 ) TAKING up this ground and considering the provisions of Sections 71 and 220, I. P. C. , exfacie, conviction under Sections 307 and 326, I. P. C. where the alleged offence has taken place in one series of acts, and if connected together, formed one transaction, thus, awarding conviction for each of the said offences, separately, is bad in law. In Nardeo Singh v. The State1, it has been ruled that where an accused person shoots with a pistol and thereby causes hurt to another person, the former is liable to be convicted under the latter part of Section 307, I. P. C. and his conviction under Section 323 is not warranted. Applying the ratio of Allahabad case (ibid), here, the alleged injuries were caused in one series of acts connected together as to form one and the same transaction. The arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant must sustain. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, this is not all. In the light of the material placed by the prosecution and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is now to be seen whether offence under Section 307, I. P. C. has been brought home to the accused/appellant. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel in support of his contention has contended that there are many omissions and contradictions in the statement of P. W. 10 Dhannulal and P. W. 8 Bhamma Bai and therefore, the learned counsel taking aid of Section 161, Cr. P. C. , explanation clause, submitted that an omission to state a fact or circumstances in the statement, under sub-Section (2), may amount to contradiction, if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the contradictions and omissions in the statements of witnesses, as stated above. Suffice to say that even if an omission may amount to contradiction in view of the explanation clause of Section 162, Cr. P. C. , but all the more, the evidence on this account alone cannot be rejected outright. In such a circumstance, heavy duty casts upon this Court to make deep scrutiny-of the evidence on record. See State of UP. v. MK Anthony2. P. C. , but all the more, the evidence on this account alone cannot be rejected outright. In such a circumstance, heavy duty casts upon this Court to make deep scrutiny-of the evidence on record. See State of UP. v. MK Anthony2. ( 11 ) IT is next contended that the appellant Rajkumar has also received injuries and the same has not been explained by the prosecution and the same being fatal to the prosecution, legitimately, this court may draw an inference that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true facts before the Court. In this connection it is submitted that in the instant case having not explained the injuries received by the appellant during the course of the incident, inflicted by the prosecution witnesses, the total story of the prosecution is deserves to be rejected outright, being a concocted one. It is also submitted that the appellant was holding the land as an occupancy tenant and had sown crop and as such had every right of private defence to protect himself and his property. ( 12 ) NO doubt, the appellant had received injuries on his person, inflicted by the complainant and was examined by Dr. K. K. Sahu (P. W. 7) vide injury report Ex. D. I on 28-3-1987, but the same has not been successfully explained by the prosecution. In Patori Devi and ors. v. Amarnath and ors. 3 it has been ruled that the prosecution has suppressed the fact of causing injuries to the accused, the same may furnish reason whether the accused has exceeded the right of private defence. ( 13 ) IN this context, it is pertinent to state that where a plea of private defence is raised by the accused, it is the duty of the Court to examine the same in the light of the evidence and the material before it and only when the plea raised is not established, the accused could be convicted of the offence alleged. Therefore, where the surrounding circumstances of the case leads to the conclusion that the accused might have acted in self-defence, in such cases, omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries found on the person of the accused, would be a circumstance, favourable to him and that benefit must go to him. Therefore, where the surrounding circumstances of the case leads to the conclusion that the accused might have acted in self-defence, in such cases, omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries found on the person of the accused, would be a circumstance, favourable to him and that benefit must go to him. ( 14 ) IN the instant case, P. W. 7, Dr. K. K. Sahu in para 9 of his statement has stated that on 28-3- 1987 at about 11-55 P. M. (night) he had examined the accused Rajkumar alias Gudda and found the following injuries on his person: 1. AIK KUCHLA HUV A GHA V KHOPRI PAR SAMNE KI HADDI KE DAHINE A V AM UPRI BHAG PAR; AAKAR KIN ARE ANIY AMIT RAKTSTRA V HO RAHA THA. 2. AIK KUCHLA HUV A GHA V DAHINE KAN PAR AAKAR 1 x 1. 5 CENTIMETER x 1/2 KINARE ANIY AMIT RAKT-STRA V HO RAHA THA. 3. DO KANTRA YOOJAN (1) BA YEN KANDHE PAR; (2) DAHINE HA TH KI BHUJ A PAR JINKA AAKAR 5 x 2 PARTYEK. 4. DOOSRA SAMNE KA NICHE KA DANT HIL RAHA THA JISKE LIYE DANT VISESAGY A KO DIKHANE KI SALAH DI THI. PRA. P1. MERA JANCH PARTIVADAN HAT JIS PAR MERE HAST AKSAR HAIN. These injuries have not been explained by the prosecution. It has come of record that accused was occupancy tenant of the land in question and the same land was sold to Dhaniram. P. W. 8 Bhamma Bai in para 6 of her statement has admitted that: YEH SAHI HAT KI ISI JAMEEN KE KABZE PAR SE JHAGRA HUV A THA. YEH SARI HAT KI RAJKUMAR KART A THA KI TUM LOG IS KHET KE CHANA NARIKAT SAKTE. DHANIRAM NE BOLA KI HAM TO CHANA KA TENGE. YEH SAHI HA KI IS PAR SE DHANIRAM AUR RAJKUMAR KI GARMA-GARMI KI BATCHEET HONE LAGI. It has not been established by the prosecution that it was Dhaniram who had sown the crop, on the other hand, the prosecution witnesses are silent on this issue. Therefore, safely it could be held that the field was ploughed and gram crop was sown by the accused and therefore he was entitled to protect his right to save his property. It is not that the accused was the aggressor. Therefore, safely it could be held that the field was ploughed and gram crop was sown by the accused and therefore he was entitled to protect his right to save his property. It is not that the accused was the aggressor. ( 15 ) THE Trial Court no doubt, has endured to meet the plea of self defence, but discussing the law on the point and believing the statement of Bhamma Bai, rejected the plea of self defence. Whereas, it was Bhamma Bai whose admissions, as stated above, under the circumstances aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, case of non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused/appellant, established the case of self defence and thus the appellant is entitled for his acquittal of the offences charged. ( 16 ) FROM the discussion above, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the offences charged. His bail bond stand discharged. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. .