JUDGMENT N.L. Ganguly, J. - Bhagwan Dass, appellant an accused convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge, Bareilly in S.T. No. 314 of 1979 has filed the appeal before this Court. 2. According to the prosecution case, the appellant' was married to Smt. Bhim Kali alias Guddi. She was married about seven years back. The father of Bhim Kali was one Jai Ram. He was an IVth class employee at the Veterinary Hospital near Mohalla Sarai Kham of Bereilly City. Bhagwan Dass, appellant, did not treat his wife Bhim Kali well. It is said that appellant had turned out Bhim Kali from his house and she came and started living in the quarter of her father jai Rim in the Veterinary Hospital premises, she also did not want to go to her husband the appellant she was married second time to one Krishna Pal of Village Byukhera of the said District. The appellant felt extremely annoyed and bore enmity with Jai Ram, his father-in-law on that account. It is said that on 4th June,1979, Jai Ram's brother Lochan and Bhim Kali's Mausa and Mouse Naubat and Indoo left the quarter for their home. Jai Ram, Bhim Kali, Jai Ram's wife all came to the gate of the hospital near the road to see off Naubat and Indro, Mausa and Mausi of Bhim Kali. It is said that Naubat while going turned back and talked to Bhim Kali and asked her not to go to Bhukhera. In the mean time, it is said that appellant Bhagwan appeared suddenly with a sword. He caught hold of Bhim Kali and started pulling her. On the shrieks of Bhim Kali, Jai Ram, who was very near the place ran to save her. Appellant Bhagwan Dass left Bhim Kali and struck Jai Ram repeatedly with sword causing serious injures. Jai Ram fell on the road in front of the hospital gate. Appellant Bhagwan Dass after assaulting started running. Bhim Kali and other persons present there, started chasing while making alarm, passers by and inmates of the hospital had arrived at the scene of occurrence. Appellant fled through Sarai Khan Gate waving the sword and he was taught near Kutub Khana crossing by Traffic Constable Kashi Ram with the sword. Appellant Bhagwan Dass after assaulting started running. Bhim Kali and other persons present there, started chasing while making alarm, passers by and inmates of the hospital had arrived at the scene of occurrence. Appellant fled through Sarai Khan Gate waving the sword and he was taught near Kutub Khana crossing by Traffic Constable Kashi Ram with the sword. The Traffic Constable Kashi Ram enquired the name of the lady Bhim Kali who had told the constable that the appellant had caused sword injury to her father near the Veterinary Hospital gate. The Constable Kashi Ram took appellant with sword on a rickshaw to the place of incident. Bhim Kali and others also accompanied the appellant and Kashi Ram Traffic Constable to the place of incident which was close, about 2 furlongs from the place where the appellant was caught by the constable. They reached the hospital gate, saw Jai Ram lay groaning in a pool of blood. Traffic Constable Kashi Ram took injured Jai Ram on the same rickshaw on which he had come with the appellant Bhagwan Dass. Bhagwan Dass was also taken on the same rickshaw by the constable to the police station. After reaching the police station, the constable Kashi Ram handed over the appellant to the custody of the police at the Kotwali police station and Bhim Kali lodged the report at the police station. 3. The occurrence had taken place on 4.6.79 at 2.30 p.m. and the first information report was lodged at 4 p.m. soon after the incident at the P.S. Kotwali by Smt. Bhim Kali under Section 307 I.P.C. 4. After lodging the F.I.R. at the police station Kotwali, the police sent injured Jai Ram to the nearby District Hospital.Dr.Rajiv Agarwal attended the injured first at 4.35 p.m. Since Jai Ram had very serious injuries and was profusely bleeding, he preferred to give the patient medical aid first then preparing the injury report. Since Dr. Rajiv Agarwal shifted the injured Jai Ram to Emergency Ward, where Senior Surgeon Dr. M.C. Sharma took over the care of the injured. He was operated upon by Dr. M.C. Sharma but he could not be saved and died at 11.30 p.m. in the hospital on 5.6.79. Since Dr. Rajiv Agarwal shifted the injured Jai Ram to Emergency Ward, where Senior Surgeon Dr. M.C. Sharma took over the care of the injured. He was operated upon by Dr. M.C. Sharma but he could not be saved and died at 11.30 p.m. in the hospital on 5.6.79. After the death, information was communicated to the police station and the section of offence was changed from 307 I.P.C. to 302 I.P.C. The two charge sheets were submitted one under Section 302 and other under Section 25 Arms Act against the appellant. Case under Section 302 I.P.C. was committed to the Court of Sessions. 5. In Sessions Trial, prosecution examined eyewitnesses Smt. Bhim Kali (PW 2) Smt. Laxmi (P.W. 3), widow of deceased Jai Ram, and Traffic Constable Kashi Ram (PW 4). Besides these, prosecution examined Dr. S.C. Sharma (PW 1) and Dr. Rajiv Agarwal (PW 7). PW 5 Gopal Singh, PW 6 Tilak Singh, PW 9 Om Prakash, PW 8 Dinesh Singh and PW 10 Ramesh Kumar, 1.0. The appellant had denied the charges, pleaded innocence and a defence witness DW 1 Dr. R.C. Srivastava was produced. 6. The prosecution version, as disclosed in the F.I.R. was stated by PW 2 Smt. Bhim Kali alias Guddi. She categorically stated that she was earlier married to the appellant and appellant had not treated her well. Bhim Kali stated that appellant was a drunkard and a gambler. He did not work and preferred to remain without work. He had been ill treating her and often assaulted her. Lastly about 2 or three years back before the date of incident, she had been living with her father Jai Ram. During this period of two or three years, she lived in the quarter of the Veterinary Hospital and had not gone back to Karampur village of appellant. The appellant and Smt. Bhim Kali alias Guddi belong to Jatav Community. Bhim Kali stated that she was not inclined to go and stay with appellant again and there had been release of marriage ties between her and appellant. She stated that she had asked her father Jai Ram to get her married to some-one-else, as it was not possible for Jai Ram to look after her throughout the life. Accordingly Jai Ram had married his daughter Bhim Kali with Krishna Pal of Village Bukhere. She stated that she had asked her father Jai Ram to get her married to some-one-else, as it was not possible for Jai Ram to look after her throughout the life. Accordingly Jai Ram had married his daughter Bhim Kali with Krishna Pal of Village Bukhere. She stated to have stayed with Krishna Pal for some time and at the time of incident, she had come to her father's place at the Veterinary Hospital, quarter. She stated that on the day of incident, Lochan, elder brother of her father and Mausa and Mausi namely Naubat and Indra had come to the quarters of Jai Ram that day. They had taken their meals in the noon. Mausa Naubat and Mausi Indra asked Jai Ram to send Smt. Bhirn Kali with them to their village. Jai Ram had refused to send Bhim Kali with Naubat and Indra. At about 3 p.m. Naubat and Indra were returning after they had taken their meals etc. Bhim Kali, Jai Ram and Smt. Laxmi had come to the hospital gate for giving a send off to the Mausa and Mausi. Naubat before actually going, returned back and asked Bhim Kali not to go to the village Baukhera. In the mean time appellant Bhagwan Dass came to the place, armed with sword, caught hold of Bhim Kali and started pulling her. On her shrieks, Jai Ram rushed to the scene, appellant left Bhim Kali and started assaulting Jai Ram with sword. On the noise and shrieks, people from the locality had also arrived and seen the incident. Appellant tried to escape after inflicting sword injury to Jai Ram towards the Sarai Khan. Bhim Kali, her step mother Laxmi (PW 3) and others chased Bhagwan Dass and he was apprehended by Traffic constable Kashi Ram near the crossing at a distance while running Bhagwan Dass, appellant was wielding his sword. Bhagwan Dass was apprehended alongwith the sword. In the mean time, Bhim Kali and Laxmi had also reached the place near the crossing. They had informed the constable PW 4 Kashi Ram that he was running after inflicting the sword injury to Jai Ram. The constable Kashi Ram took Bagwan Dass alongwith sword on a rickshaw to the place of incident near the hospital gate, Bhim Kali and Laxmi Devi and all other had followed the constable. Near the hospital gate, victim was lying in pool of blood. The constable Kashi Ram took Bagwan Dass alongwith sword on a rickshaw to the place of incident near the hospital gate, Bhim Kali and Laxmi Devi and all other had followed the constable. Near the hospital gate, victim was lying in pool of blood. Constable Kashi Ram took the injured on the rickshaw alongwith Bhagwan Dass the appellant and handed over Bhagwan Dass with sword to the custody of the police. The prosecution case, as narrated in the F.I.R. was repeated in the Sessions Court by Bhim Kali. 7. The questions put to her in the cross-examination show that emphasis was to show that the marriage ties between Bhagwan Dass appellant and Bhim Bali had not been severed. She was illegally been given to Krishna Pal. The defence succeeded in getting a reply that.there was a girl born to the couple out of their wedlock, that girl Rajeshwari was about 471. years and had died 6 or 7 months back from the date of her statement in court. The prosecution witness PW 3 Laxmi Devi is the widow of Jai Ram and step mother of Bhim Kali. She corroborated the Statement of Bhim Kali fully, so far as actual incident is concerned. The appellant could not make out any case in his favour nor any material contradictions could be found in her statement. It is evident from the statement of these two prosecution witnesses that on the date of incident, the Mausa and Mausi Naubat and Indra and Lochan the elder brother of deceased Jai Ram had assembled at the quarter of Jai Ram. The reason for the assembly of these persons at the quarter on the date of incident was asked to the witnesses and it was clearly stated that it was a casual visit of their relation. There was nothing special or particular about the meeting on the date of incident. 8. The prosecution examined PW 4 Kashi Ram, Traffic Constable, who had apprehended the appellant near the crossing while he was running away wielding the sword after the incident. Kashi Ram Constable stated that he could succeed in catching and apprehending the appellant from the back side. He also admitted that two persons from the nearby shop had also arrived at the time when constable had apprehended the appellant. Kashi Ram Constable stated that he could succeed in catching and apprehending the appellant from the back side. He also admitted that two persons from the nearby shop had also arrived at the time when constable had apprehended the appellant. The witness Kashi Ram stated that after the arrest of the appellant, he took him on a rickshaw with the sword to the place of incident, Bhim Kali and others had followed, they reached the place of incident and saw injured Jai Rai lying in a pool of blood near the gate of the hospital: The constable Kashi Ram took the victim on his rickshaw and alongwith the appellant on the same rickshaw to the police station. Bhim Kali and others had also accompanied, Kashi Ram after reaching the police station handed over Bhagwan Dass, appellant to the custody of the police alongwith the sword and scabbard. A memo of recovery of sword was prepared. The injured Jai Ram was sent for medical examination and treatment in the hospital, where PW 7 Dr. Rajiv Agarwal examined initially the injures of injured Jai Ram, while recording the injuries and examining the patient, he had been able to record only some of the injuries namely : "1.I/W 15cm. x 7cm.x base of deep at rt. side neck back extending from lower and at Lt. ear to back of occipittal. 2. I/W 3 cm. x 2 cm. x cartilage deep on Helix of Rt. ear. 3. I/W 20 cm. x 12 cm. x bone deep with c/E of humerus cut through and through muscles cut through and through on back of Rt. upper arm extending lower ? of upper arm and upper. ? of Rt. fore arm. 4. I/W 13 cm. x 4 cm. x bone deep front upper ? of Lt. leg just below knee Rt. Tibis cut. Examination of other injuries deferred as condition of patient is very serious and patient shifted to emergency ward. All injuries are grievous caused by sharp edged weapon and fresh." He could not further examine the victim as the injuries on the patient were so serious that he thought first to provide medical aid then to make injury report. He thus transmitted the patient to the Emergency ward and Dr. M. C. Sharma took over the patient. and started treatment and even conducted the operations over the patient in the Surgery department. He thus transmitted the patient to the Emergency ward and Dr. M. C. Sharma took over the patient. and started treatment and even conducted the operations over the patient in the Surgery department. The patient died on 5th June 1979 at 11.50 a.m. Dr. M.C. Sharma (PW 1) conducted the post mortem examination and proved the post mortem report. The injuries found on the deceased are quoted as under: "Anti mortem injuries : (1) Stitched incised wound 9 cm. x 1 cm. x bone cut deep on the back of head cutting the occipital bone obliquely. (2) stitched incised wound curves 16 cm, 2 cm. x muscle deep 7 bridge on back of neck x outer side of neck 2 cm. below left ear, cutting the ear marging outer side and loble of left car in continuation. (3) U-shaped stitched incised wound 26 cm. x 3 cm. bone cat deep cutting the humerus bone lower 1 /3rd and elbow joint from back over of left arm. (4) Stitched incised wounds 3 cm x 1 cm. on left thumb, 2 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep on left little finger. -palmer side cutting phalanges (both injuries) (5) stitched incised wound 13 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep on front of left leg 3 cm. below knee cutting muscle and both bones. (6) vein section.cut (Incised wound) :2 cm. x cm. on inner side of Rt. leg. (7) Stitched incised wound 13 cm. x cm. x bone deep middle of palm obliquely between middle finger and -index finger rt. hand also cutting the thumb 2 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep. (8) Incised wound 13 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep on the back of rt. arm scapular region cutting the shoulder joint and scapula bone. The appellant was also examined by Dr. R. C. Srivastava on 5.6.79 at 5-15 p.m. Injuries on the appellant were recorded in the injury report Ext. kha I provided by Dr. R. C. Srivastava. The injuries are quoted as under : (1) Contusion 6 cm. x 3 cm. over outer aspect to middle of right upper arm. (2) Contusion 5 cm. x 2 cm. at 5 cm. below injury No. 1 (3) Contusion 5 cm. x 2 cm. over outer aspect of middle of right forearm. (4) Traumatic swelling over tip of rt. ring finger. (5) Contusion 6 cm. x 3 cm. x 3 cm. over outer aspect to middle of right upper arm. (2) Contusion 5 cm. x 2 cm. at 5 cm. below injury No. 1 (3) Contusion 5 cm. x 2 cm. over outer aspect of middle of right forearm. (4) Traumatic swelling over tip of rt. ring finger. (5) Contusion 6 cm. x 3 cm. x 3 cm. over It. shoulder reddish in colour. (6) Contusion 11 cm. x 4 cm. over upper part or left upper arm reddish colour. (7) Contusion 8 cm. x 6 cm. over outer aspect of lower part of left tipper arm. (8) Abrasion 6 cm. x 3 cm. over upper part of outer aspect of left forearm. (9) Abrasion 4 cm. x 2 cm. at 5 cm. below injury No. 8. (10) Traumatic swelling over middle of left forearm. (11) Traumatic swelling over doreem of left hand. (12) Traumatic swelling over right knee. (13) Abrasion 5 cm. x 1 cm. over upper part of front of right leg. (14) Abrasion 2 cm. x 1.5. cm. at 4 cm. below injury No. 13." PW 1 Dr. M. C. Sharma clearly stated that injury No. 6 was incised wound, which was surgical incesation in the hospital and other injuries correspondent to the injury shown by Dr. Rajiv Agarwal (P.W. 7). The injuries on the palm and one more injury was perhaps not noticed by Dr. Rajiv Agarwal (P.W.) 7 as the condition of the patient was very serious. Besides the above witnesses, the prosecution examined the formal witnesses mentioned already. 9. The learned counsel Sri Ramji Saxena placed the entire evidence before as and submitted firstly that there was no dissolution of marriage or separation between the appellant and Bhim Kali secondly the witnesses examined namely Smt. Bhim Kali and Laxmi Devi (PW 2) and (PW 3) were highly interested witnesses and the other independent witnesses namely the Doctor of the Veterinary Hospital and Sewa Ram, who admittedly had reached the place of incident according to the prosecution were withheld and not examined before the Court. It is also stated that according to the statement of witness Smt. Bhim Kali at the time of incident Naubat, Mausa and Indra, Mausi had not totally left the place and had seen the incident from a distance. They were also not examined by the prosecution. It is also stated that according to the statement of witness Smt. Bhim Kali at the time of incident Naubat, Mausa and Indra, Mausi had not totally left the place and had seen the incident from a distance. They were also not examined by the prosecution. Besides the uncle of Bhim Kali, Lochan and other independent witnesses who had seen the incident were not produced. The submission is that no reliance could be placed on the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 and adverse inference may be drawn for with-holding the independent witnesses named above. The third submission made by the. learned counsel for the appellant is that scabbard which is said to have been produced before the court was not sealed nor any recovery memo for the scabbard was prepared. The prosecution case should not be accepted for want of material evidence about the proof of presence of sword and scabbard; fourthly it was submitted that blood stains on the sword was not chemically examined for proving that there was human blood present on the blade of the sword. The last submission of the learned counsel is, that the prosecution has not explained the injuries found on the person of the appellant. He submitted that want of explanation of the injuries on the appellant itself is a ground which belies the prosecution case. The defence suggestion is that on the date of incident, the appellant was called in the meeting of the panchayat held at the quarter of Jai Ram in presence of several other people. Jai Ram had wanted to get signatures of the appellant forcibly on a paper for dissolution of the marriage of Bhim Kali and the appellant. Appellant stated that he declined to his signature on the document. As such, Jai Ram became annoyed and he had assaulted him and caused the injuries on his person. It is suggested that the associates and others, who had accompanied the appellant had caused the injury to Jai Ram when he was inflicting injuries on the appellant to save him. The submission of the learned counsel is that the injuries on the victim was caused by some-one-else other than the appellant. The appellant, has stated to have been implicated on account of enmity with Jai Ram. 10. This is a broad-day-light occurrence. The submission of the learned counsel is that the injuries on the victim was caused by some-one-else other than the appellant. The appellant, has stated to have been implicated on account of enmity with Jai Ram. 10. This is a broad-day-light occurrence. It cannot be disputed that the place of incident is near the gate of the Veterinary hospital as blood stained earth was recovered from the said place by the I. O. The witnesses Bhim Kali and Laxmi Devi besides PW 4 Kashi Ram clearly stated as before the Sessions Court that the place of incident was in front of the gate of the veterinary hospital. This fact is further corroborated by the recovery of blood from the place along with the earth by the I.O. Thus, there can be no doubt about the place of incident which is near the gate of Veterinary hospital. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that best and other witnesses available at the place of incident at the time of occurrence were with-held and not produced before the Court. Thus, the prosecution case becomes highly unbelievable for suppression of material evidence. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant may sound very attractive. If the statement of the witnesses PW 2 and PW 3 are read together closely, it will be evident that it had not taken much time for the accused-appellant to cause injury. The incident could not have lasted more than one or two minutes. The Doctor of the Veterinary hospital and Sewa Ram could not have seen the incident from the beginning as was witnessed by Bhim Kali and Laxmi Devi. These two witnesses have been examined who have categorically stated and proved the facts. The Doctor of the Veterinary hospital and Sewa Ram could not have stated much about the incident as they must have reached the place of incident after the incident was over. They could not reach earlier unless they heard the shrieks and the noise. Thus, the allegation that best witnesses were with-held by the prosecution is not correct. The other witnesses namely Lochan and Smt. Indra and Naubat were not examined by the prosecution. The submission is that their evidence was very material and important. With-holding of such evidence by the prosecution creates doubt in the prosecution case. Thus, the allegation that best witnesses were with-held by the prosecution is not correct. The other witnesses namely Lochan and Smt. Indra and Naubat were not examined by the prosecution. The submission is that their evidence was very material and important. With-holding of such evidence by the prosecution creates doubt in the prosecution case. The prosecution has not relied nor desired to produce Naubat and Indra as witnesses in the case. Their presence at the time of incident and at the place of occurrence cannot be conclusively shown at the relevant time. They belonged to village and can always be labled as chance witnesses. Non-examination of Naubat and Indra is also of no adverse inference. Lochan is stated to be present at the place of occurrence. Since he has not been examined as witness in the Sessions Trial, the submission is that the prosecution case may be thrown out. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. It is not always necessary to examine all and redundant witnesses in each case to meet any argument of the defence. None of the witnesses have admitted or stated that Lochan was present at the place of occurrence at the time of incident. Thus, it was not necessary to examine Lochan by the prosecution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant on this count is not accepted. 11. The evidence of Bhim Kali is fully corroborated by the statement of Smt. Laxmi Devi, who corroborated each other on material points. The evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 is further strengthened by the statement of PW 4 Kashi Rani, Traffic Constable, who soon after the incident had apprehended Bhagwan Dass, appellant with the sword. Thus, the eve witnesses examined in the case by the prosecution stands the tests required for scrutinising and appreciating the evidence in a correct manner. The statements of these three witnesses Bhim Kali, Laxmi Devi and PW 4 Kashi Ram are correct and there is no scope to disbelieve their statements. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was a serious discrepancy in the prosecution case. The scabbard in which the sword was kept, was not seized at the spot nor was proved to have been sealed by the I.O. at the Thana. The evidence of recovery of the sword and scabbard becomes doubtful. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was a serious discrepancy in the prosecution case. The scabbard in which the sword was kept, was not seized at the spot nor was proved to have been sealed by the I.O. at the Thana. The evidence of recovery of the sword and scabbard becomes doubtful. The argument of the learned counsel is misconceived. The sword was stated to have been recovered from the hand of the appellant by PW 4 Kashi Ram' at the crossing when he had apprehended the appellant. He had taken the accused-appellant on the rickshaw with him to the place of incident and had taken the injured on the same rickshaw with the accused to the police station. The statement of PW 4 is categorical that sword and the scabbard were given in the hand of the appellant. Thus, the omission to prepare a separate recovery memo for the scabbard do not vitiate the trial in view of the fact that recovery memo of the sword was proved by the prosecution witnesses. PW 4 had also stated before the court that the sword was the same sword which he had seized from the appellant at the time of his arrest. 13. The I. O. PW 8 K. D. N. Sahi proved the recovery of the blood stained and plain earth from the place of incident i.e. near the gate of the Veterinary hospital. He had also noticed the blood stains on the tip of the sword he had prepared letter for sending the sword for examination of the Chemical Analysist but as he was transferred on 17/18th June, 1979 to Shahjahanpur he could not send the sword for chemical examination. No doubt he submitted the charge sheet in the case. Non-examination of the sword by the chemical Analysist for proving the human blood stains on the sword is of no consequences. It is not going to prejudice the defence case. PW 2 and PW 3 Bhim Kali and Laxmi Devi and PW 4 Kashi Ram categorically stated that the appellant has the same sword at the time of incident, and PW 4 Kashi Rangy stated to have seized the same sword which was produced before the court as Ext. I in the Sessions Trial. Thus, non sending of the sword for chemical examination is of no consequences. I in the Sessions Trial. Thus, non sending of the sword for chemical examination is of no consequences. The last and the most vehment submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries on the person of the accused appellant. The learned counsel submits that the injuries on the appellant were as many as 14 in number proved by Dr. R. C. Srivastava (PW 1). The injuries were examined on 5.6.79 at 5.45 p.m. and the doctor stated that the duration of the injuries was about 1 to 2 days. The injuries on appellant Bhagwan Dass has already been quoted above. The mere presence of the injuries on the person of the accused if not clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. is not sufficient to vitiate the prosecution case. The nature of injury, their place, situation also deserve considerations. It has to be shown that the injuries on the person of the accused were caused in the same incident in which the accused is being tried. The accused-appellant had not suggested even to PW 2 that the appellant was assaulted at the time of incident in which Jai Ram was injured seriously. Similarly, there was no suggestion to the PW 3 Smt. Laxmi Devi that the injuries on the accused-appellant were caused at the time of incident in which her husband Jai Ram had received serious injuries. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant cited 1991 Allahabad Criminal Cases 185 (Ram and others v. State of U.P.) in support of the submission that the right of self defence even if not pleaded would be available to the accused if it is shown that the accused-appellant has received injuries during the course of incident. The learned counsel emphasised that in a panchayat convened by Jai Ram for getting Bhim Kali released of matrimonial ties wanted to obtain signature forcibly from the appellant to which he had declined. 15. The appellant was belaboured by Jai Ram deceased. The other person who had come with the appellant had tried to save the appellant and caused injuries to Jai Ram. It is suggested that offence, if any, was committed by some other person not by the appellant and appellant was falsely implicated. The submission of the learned counsel is not acceptable to us. The other person who had come with the appellant had tried to save the appellant and caused injuries to Jai Ram. It is suggested that offence, if any, was committed by some other person not by the appellant and appellant was falsely implicated. The submission of the learned counsel is not acceptable to us. It is not believable that any one will leave the real assailant and implicate an innocent person. There was no reason to leave the real assailant who had actually assaulted the deceased and implicate the of name the appellant. It generally happens that alongwith the real assailant, some innocent are added whereas in the present case the submission is that the innocent person has been implicated and real assailant were left out. We are not in a position to believe the version of the appellant. It has come in the statement of Smt. Laxmi that since Bhim Kali had come and was staying with Jai Ram in the quarter of the Veterinary hospital, the appellant used to come nearby and roam around the hospital premises. There can be no other intention than to have his wife with him. The appellant was really aggrieved by the stay of Bhim Kali with her father. The defence suggestion that some other person assaulted the deceased is unbelievable and the prosecution case as have been stated cannot be disbelieved. The legal position is that it is the duty of the prosecution to explain the injures on the person of the accused, if any, in an incident. If the F.I.R. is silent and material injuries on the person of the accused is concealed or omitted to be mentioned by the informant, the inference would be against the prosecution but it is not the universal law if injuries are placed on such portion of the body which is not visible ordinarily or easily, if not mentioned in the F.I.R. that would not vitiate the prosecution case and no adverse inference would be drawn against the prosecution. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the nature of the injuries. The traumatic swelling under cover of cloth if not mentioned in the F.I.R. that would not vitiate the prosecution case. The learned counsel for state pointed out State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima and others, 1975 (12) ACC 243 SC. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the nature of the injuries. The traumatic swelling under cover of cloth if not mentioned in the F.I.R. that would not vitiate the prosecution case. The learned counsel for state pointed out State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima and others, 1975 (12) ACC 243 SC. It was submitted that it has not been shown or proved that the injuries found on the person of the accused appellant were the injuries which were caused at the time of injuries of the victim. If it is not proved that the said injuries were of the same time as that of the victim of the murder case, there is no presumption that the injuries must have been caused in the same incident. It has to be proved by the defence. It is not unknown that after the incident some times accused persons are man-handled or assaulted by on lookers or even by the police. Such injuries cannot be expected to be explained by the prosecution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case (supra) at para 16 observed : "The injuries were all of minor character. In her statement under Section 343 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1898 respondent No. 1 stated almost the same story and added that Gulabkhan was drunk while he was abusing her. Neither in Ext. 4 nor in the statement under Section 342 there was a whisper by respondent No. 1 of her having squeezed the testicles and the private part of Gulabkhan. Nothing was stated to give any inkling of her having squeezed the testicles of Gulabkhan in exercise of her right of private defence to protect her from further assault. Nor was any evidence adduced in Court to give any counter version of the occurrence. No foundation was laid to enable the Court to acquit the respondents granting them a right of private defence. It did require a pure conjecture and imagination to hold the respondents not guilty by extending to bhem the right of private defence. Thus, in view of the Supreme Court decision, a foundation was required to be laid to enable the court to extend the right of private defence to the accused. The other case Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1968 SC 702 . Thus, in view of the Supreme Court decision, a foundation was required to be laid to enable the court to extend the right of private defence to the accused. The other case Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1968 SC 702 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court at page 458 observed : "It is true that appellants in their statement under Section 342 Cr. P.C. had not taken the plea of private defence, but necessary basis for that plea had been laid in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses as well as by adducing defence evidence it is well settled that even if an accused does not plead self defence. It is open to the court to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record see in re Jogali Bhaigo Naiks and another, AIR 1927 Mad 97 . The burden of establishing that plea is on the accused and that burden can be discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of the material on record." In the present case, the appellant neither laid any foundation for plea of self-defence nor the vague suggestion during trial about the assault by some-one else not known to the appellant and false implication of the appellant in the present case is not believable in view of categorical statement of the eye-witnesses. 16. After thorough scanning the evidence of the witnesses and appreciating the facts and circumstances and the defence of the accused, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has fully established the case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The mere omission to prepare the recovery memo of the scabbard of the sword is not of any consequences nor has prejudiced the prosecution case. We are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge impugned is legally correct, based on sound reasoning and proper appreciation of the evidence on record which calls for no interference or modification. The sentences awarded to the appellant is appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. 17. We find no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is already in jail. He shall serve out the, remaining sentences.