PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal the judgement of conviction of sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhonkanal is under challenge. ( 2 ) APPELLANT, Nirakar Behera (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused'), faced trial for allegedly having committed offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the 'ipc') for causing hurt by means of an axe on one Kapila Sahu. The learned trial judge found the accused guilty, convicted him accordingly and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. ( 3 ) IN a nut-shell, the prosecution version runs as follows :on 30-7-1983 Kapil Sahu, son of Nath Gahu reported at Rasol police station that plot No. 1531/2184 relating to Khata No. 65 was in his possession. On that day he along with his brother, Nabin Sahu, Kulamani Sahu and Silamani Sahu as usual went to cultivate the land. On arriving there, they noticed that Govind Behera, Gopal Behera, Golak Parida and several others including the accused were ploughing the land. He asked Govind and Gopal as to why they were forcibly cultivating their land. Before Govind and Gopal could give a reply, at the instance of Gadei Sahu and Ratnakar Behera, those persons began assaulting them. Gopal Behera at first assaulted on the head of Kulamani Sahu with an axe, on receiving which he fell down. Immediately thereafter other persons assaulted them with lathi, bhalla, axe etc. Out of them, accused assaulted on his head, as a result of which he suffered bleeding injury. Since there was fight between the two groups, he could not know who assaulted whom. Both sides had suffered injuries. He, therefore, requested the police for taking action. ( 4 ) ON the basis of the report, police registered a case, investigated into the same and during investigation, got the injured persons medically examined and after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused alone. It is to be noted here that for the same incident accused had lodged an F. I. R. alleging assault by Kapila and several others in which their party had suffered injuries and two persons from their party, namely, Gopal and Govind breathed their last. That case was registered as S. T. No. 72 of 1983 and was treated as counter case to the one in which accused faced trial. ( 5 ) THE defence plea was of denial. That case was registered as S. T. No. 72 of 1983 and was treated as counter case to the one in which accused faced trial. ( 5 ) THE defence plea was of denial. It was further pleaded that prosecution party in the case were the aggressors and the accused acted in self defence. ( 6 ) TO further the prosecution case, nine witnesses were examined. P. W. 2 (Kapila Sahu) claimed to be one of the injured. P. W. 3, Nabin Sahu, P. W. 4, Kulamani Sahu, P. W. 5, Nilamani Sahu, P. W. 6, Indramani Sahu and P. W. 7, Kalandi Sahu claimed to have witnessed the occurrence and to have sustained injuries. ( 7 ) THE learned trial Judge acted upon the evidence of the injured and relying on the evidence of the doctor (P. W. 1), held the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. ( 8 ) IN support of the appeal, Mr. D. P. Dhal, learned counsel submitted that the place and genesis of occurrence have been suppressed by the prosecution. Though Kapil (P. W. 2) claimed that the occurrence took place in plot No. 1531/2181, as alleged in the F. I. R. and also as stated in court, the evidence of P. W. 4 is to the effect that the occurrence took place in plot No. 1531/2345. Similar was the evidence of the Investigating officer (P. W. 9 ). The suppression of genesis and skin of dispute and presenting a highly distorted version thereof creates a situation where truth cannot be separated from falsehood. In the case at hand there is considerable discrepancy as regards the place of occurrence. That raises at any rate of reasonable doubt about veracity of prosecution version. Additionally I find that sons of the accused persons received injuries of a serious nature and two of their party members lost their lives. The admitted case was of a mutual fight between two groups. The question is whether prosecution has explained injury on the accused and the other members of his party, and if there is no such explanation what would be its effect. It cannot be said that in each and every case where prosecution fails to explain the injuries on some of the accused, the prosecution case should automatically be rejected, without any further probe. It cannot be said that in each and every case where prosecution fails to explain the injuries on some of the accused, the prosecution case should automatically be rejected, without any further probe. Where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follow; that is, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrue, and, the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the accused. As observed by the Apex Court in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394 : (1976 Cri LJ 1736) in a case involving murder or serious injuries, non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw 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 one 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 assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which completes in probability with that of the prosecution one. But where the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and where the Court can distinguish the truth from falsehood the mere fact that injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence, and consequentially the whole case. Additionally, prosecution version does not become suspect because some minor or superficial injuries are not explained by the prosecution. Much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the aforesaid background, it will be unsafe to accept the accusations and uphold the conviction. In result, conviction and sentence are set aside. Appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed. .