(1) THE appellant, on his conviction by the learned Additional Judge, Special court, Bhatinda for an offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code, was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default three months rigorous imprisonment. He has challenged his conviction and sentence through this appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special courts) Act 1984. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the evidence on the record and also perused the judgment of the trial court. (2) THAT on 16/1 1/1984, at about 6/6.30 p.m. an occurrence took place in which Karnail Singh PW2 received an injury is not in dispute. The case of the appellants, however, is that the injury was caused to Karnail Singh. PW2 by the appellant with a Kirpan in self defence, after the appellant had been attacked, with a gandassa, by Karnail Singh. PW2. Both Karnail Singh, PW2 and Balbir Singh, pw 3, however. denied having caused any injury to the appellant during the occurrence. The trial court dis-believed the defence version and found that though injuries had been caused to the appellant by Karnail Singh, PW2, in spite of the denial by him, but, it was the appellant who was the aggressor. The appellant had been examined by Dr. M. S. Choudhary, Public Witness 1 on the date of the occurrence itself at about 11.30 p.m. He had found the following injuries on the appellant: "1. Incised wound 4" x 3/4 " on the right side of the face and forehead extending from 1 " lateral to the right eye up to the forehead vertically placed. Fresh bleeding was present. Injury was subjected to X-ray. 2. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.3 cm skin deep on the palmer aspect of the left index finger, at the base obliquely placed. Fresh bleeding was present. Injury was subjected to X-ray. 2. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.3 cm skin deep on the palmer aspect of the left index finger, at the base obliquely placed. Fresh bleeding was present." In so far as the injuries on the appellant are concerned, the trail court observed: "HERE I am inclined to agree with this plea of the defence also that two incised wounds one on the forehead and other on the palmer aspect of the left index finger of Mehar Singh accused remained unexplained inasmuch as both Karnail Singh and Balbir Singh (PWs) have deposed that they were not caused in the occurrence," and went on to say that, "OF course the injuries on the person of accused and not explained by the prosecution and a doubt could arise against its own version. The accused must have received injuries during the occurrence at the hands of karnali Singh. Although he tried to conceal the manner in which the injuries were caused to Mehar Singh." (3) PW1 had also found the following injuries on Kamail Singh. PW2. when he examined him on the same date at about 10.00 p.m. "1. Incised wound 8 cm x 2 cm x bone deep underlying bone cut obliquely placed on the left side of the occipital region. Profuse bleeding was present. 2. An abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm on the anterior aspect of right knee. Fresh bleeding was present." (4) AT the trial both PW2 and pw 3 attributed the second injury found on Kamail Singh. PW2 to the appellant, to have been caused by him from the blunt side of the gandasa. Dr. M. S. Choudhary. PW1, during his cross-examination admitted that injury No. 2 on Kamail Singh could have been the result of a fall. The trial court on the basis of this evidence opined that the second injury was not caused to Kamail Singh, PW2 in the manner suggested by the prosecution. In this behalf, the trial court also opined: "I find sufficient force in this contention of the learned defence counsel. The trial court on the basis of this evidence opined that the second injury was not caused to Kamail Singh, PW2 in the manner suggested by the prosecution. In this behalf, the trial court also opined: "I find sufficient force in this contention of the learned defence counsel. The PWs have exaggerated the story by saying that second injury was also caused by Mehar Singh accused with the blunt side of his gandasa." (5) THUS, we find that the trial court itself has found that the prosecution had not only not explained the injury on the appellant but had deliberately concealed that the injuries were caused to the appellant at the time of the occurrence. After an analysis of the evidence on the record the trial court found that the investigation was partisan and tainted and observed that "admittedly the conduct of ASI Harnam Singh should be condemned with strong words". (6) FROM a careful scrutiny of the evidence on the record we find that the evidence of Kamail Singh, PW2 and Balbir Singh. pw 3 is not only an exaggerated version of the case, as opined by the trial court, but a definite attempt has been made by them to conceal the manner in which the occurrence took place. The prosecution has concealed the origin of the fight and given a twist to the entire occurrence with the assistance of Harnam Singh, ASI. The trial court overlooked that the appellant had received two incised injuries at the hands of Kamail Singh. PW2, and looking to the nature and seat of those injuries, the defence version that the appellant caused only one injury to PW2 on his head in exercise of the right of self defence gets greatly probabilised. We are not impressed by the opinion of the trial court to the effect that the appellant was the aggressor only on the basis of the seat of injury on Kamail Singh. PW2. Keeping in view the tainted nature of the investigation and the falsehood uttered by PW2 and pw 3 regarding the second injury on PW2. we are of the opinion that the defence version which we have found to be otherwise probable, deserves acceptance and we, accordingly, hold that the appellant caused the single injury to Kamail Singh. PW2 in the exercise of the right of self defence after he had received two injuries. The appellant cannot, therefore. we are of the opinion that the defence version which we have found to be otherwise probable, deserves acceptance and we, accordingly, hold that the appellant caused the single injury to Kamail Singh. PW2 in the exercise of the right of self defence after he had received two injuries. The appellant cannot, therefore. be said to have committed any offence. The conviction of the appellant, therefore, for the offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. This appeal succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is hereby set aside. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.