JUDGEMENT Vishnu Sahai, J. :- The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27th December, 1982 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 89 of 1982, convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302, IPC. has come up in appeal before us. Along with the appellant four others, viz. (1) Gajarabai Uttam Salve, (2) Kamal Machindra Salve. (3) Sojarbai Uttam and (4) Dagadabai Babu Salve were also prosecuted and tried but they have been acquitted vide the impugned judgment. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as follows : The deceased Rama Savala Salve, his son Harishchandra Rama Salve P.W. 8, his daughter Sharda Ramchandra Salve P.W. 11, and Balu Sakharam Ghadge P.W. 12 were residents of village Pomalwadi, situated within the limits of village and Police Station, Karmala, Dist. Solapur. The appellant and the acquitted accused persons were also residents of the said village. On 26-2-1981 Rama Salve and his son Harishchandra had gone to the market from where they returned at about 5 p.m. Thereafter, Rama Salve went inside the house and Harishchandra outside the house started examining the clothes purchased by him in the market. At that time he heard the cries of Uttam (a co-accused in the instant case, who died prior to the commencement of the trial), the two wives of Uttam, Gajarabai and Sojarbai, his brother Machindra (the appellant), Dagadabai, the mother of the appellant and Babu Dada Salve, the father of the appellant. The said persons were abusing Rama Salve. By the time Harishchandra entered inside the house to inform Rama Salve, Gajarabai and Sojarbai felled Rama Salve down. The appellant and Uttam assaulted Rama Salve with a knife. Gajarabai, Kamal, Sojarbai had Dagadabai held Rama Salve. Harishchandra tried to rescue his father but Uttam hurled a stone at him which struck him on his head. Kamal assaulted Sharda, the daughter of Rama Salve who rushed to the rescue of her father with a stone and also slapped her. Kamal was shouting that Rama Salve was not dead and should be beaten and saying this she handed the crow bar which she was carrying, to the appellant and the latter assaulted Rama Salve with it resulting in his death. After assaulting Rama Salve, Harishchandra and Sharda, the appellant and others are alleged to have run away. Kamal was shouting that Rama Salve was not dead and should be beaten and saying this she handed the crow bar which she was carrying, to the appellant and the latter assaulted Rama Salve with it resulting in his death. After assaulting Rama Salve, Harishchandra and Sharda, the appellant and others are alleged to have run away. After the incident Harishchandra went to Parewadi to call his uncle Laxman Salve. Thereafter, both he and Laxman Salve came to village Pomalwadi. Harishchandra stayed there but his uncle Laxman Salve proceeded towards Jinti for going to the police outpost. At about 7.30 - 8 p.m. Laxman Salve returned with the police. After arrival of the police Harishchandra and Sharda, who were waiting at some distance from their house went to their house, and found that Rama Salve was dead. Thereafter, the police took Harishchandra and Laxman Salve to Karmala police station for lodging the FIR. 3. The FIR of the incident was lodged by Harishchandra Salve P.W. 8 on 27-2-1981 at about 4.30 a.m. at Karmala Police Station. On its basis PSI Subhash Shinde P.W. 16 registered C.R. No. 17 of 1981 under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149, IPC. against the appellant, the acquitted accused persons, Uttam and Babu who died prior to the commencement of the trial. 4. The injuries of Harishchandra and Sharda were medically examined by Dr. Bhandare P.W. 9 at Cottage Hospital, Karmala on 27-7-1981. At about 7.30 a.m. he found the following injuries on the person of Harishchandra : (i) Contused abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" on the head, right parietal region, 2" towards right of middle line; (ii) Complaint of pain in the left shoulder back side, there was no visible injury; and (iii) Complaint of pain over right side of the head, there was no visible injury." In the opinion of Dr. Bhandare the said injuries could have been caused by a hard blunt object like stone, stick, or iron bar and were inflicted within 24 hours of their examination. At 12 noon Dr. Bhandare medically examined Sharda Salve and found on her person the following injuries : (i) Transverse linear infected wound 1/2 " long on the right middle finger, terminal digit. (ii) Infected abrasion 1/4 " x 1/l0 th on the head left parietal region. (iii) Complaint of pain on the head right side, there was no visible injury. Bhandare medically examined Sharda Salve and found on her person the following injuries : (i) Transverse linear infected wound 1/2 " long on the right middle finger, terminal digit. (ii) Infected abrasion 1/4 " x 1/l0 th on the head left parietal region. (iii) Complaint of pain on the head right side, there was no visible injury. In the opinion of Dr. Bhandare the said injuries could have been caused by some rough substance and were between 2 to 7 days old. 5. The post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased Rama Salve was conducted on 27-2-1981 between 4.15 p.m. and 6.45 p.m. by Dr. Mukund Pande P.W. 10. Dr. Pande found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased : (i) Incised wound 3/4" x 1/4" x 1/8" over right lower chest front side and oblique. (ii) Incised wound 3/4" x 1/4" x 1/8" oblique, just near right nipple. (iii) Incised wound 3/4" x 1/4" x 1/8" over Incised wound 3/4" x 1/4" x 1/8" over right lower chest front side and oblique. (iv) Incised wound 1" x 1/4" x abdominal cavity deep over left side of the abdomen 2" laterally from umbilicus obliquely. Loop of small intestine protruding out of the wound. (v) Contusion 3 1/2" x 2" over both lateral side of the chest. (vi) Contusion with an abrasion 1'' x 1/2" over right elbow left amxilla and middle of the abdomen. (vii) C.L.W. 2" x 1/2" x 1/8" over occiput. (viii) Fractured ribs right side 3 to 7 and left 9 to11. On internal examination Dr. Pande found fracture of 3rd to the 7th rib on the right side, 9th to the 11th rib on the left side, rupture of pleura, rupture of peritoneum below injury No. 4 and rupture of liver. In the opinion of Dr. Pande the incised wounds were attributable to a weapon like a knife or spear and the contusion could be caused by the crow bar. Article 6, Dr. Pande also stated that the rupture of liver was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. 6. It needs to be pointed out that an FIR with respect to the same incident was lodged by Gajrabai wife of the deceased Uttam on the basis of which C.R. No. 18 of 1981, under Section 307, IPC etc. 6. It needs to be pointed out that an FIR with respect to the same incident was lodged by Gajrabai wife of the deceased Uttam on the basis of which C.R. No. 18 of 1981, under Section 307, IPC etc. was registered at police station, Karmala against Rama Salve and Harishchandra. 7. On the side of Gajarabai six persons viz. herself, the appellant, his wife Kamal Salve, Uttam's second wife Sojarbai, the mother of the appellant Dagdabai and Uttam Salve were injured. The said persons were medically examined by Dr. Bhandare P.W. 9 on 27-2-1981 at Cottage Hospital, Karmala on yadi (letter of request) sent by the police. Uttam Salve was medically examined at about 2.45 a.m. and was found to have sustained the following injuries : (i) Swelling all over the left side of the occipital region of the head, mastoid region and upper half of the neck with abrasion 1/l0th" x 1/l0th" on the mastoid region. (ii) Whole of the left side of the face was swollen and there was ecchymosis of the left lower eye-lid. (iii) There was bleeding through the left ear. The patient was unconscious. There was dried blood in the nose. The right pupil was constricted and not reacting to light. Gajrabai was medically examined at 10.30 a.m. and her injury report shows that she sustained the following injuries : (i) Contused lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/10th on the head left front on parietal region 1" behind the forehead and 2" left to middle line. (ii) Contused abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on the left wrist back side. The appellant was examined at 6.40 p.m. and was found to have sustained the following injuries : (i) Irregular contused lacerated wound 2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the head left parietal region. (ii) Contused lacerated wound 1" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the right parietal - frontal region. (iii) Contused abrasion 1" x 1/2" on the head right parietal eminence. (iv) Complaint pain in the back left lumber region. (v) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/l0th" on the chin. (vi) Abrasions over both knees. Kamal Salve was medically examined at 6.47 p.m. and her injury report shows that she sustained the following injuries : (i) Irregular contused lacerated wound 2" x 1/2" x 1/4" on the head in the centre. (ii) Contused abrasion 2" x 1" on the back side of the right shou1der. (vi) Abrasions over both knees. Kamal Salve was medically examined at 6.47 p.m. and her injury report shows that she sustained the following injuries : (i) Irregular contused lacerated wound 2" x 1/2" x 1/4" on the head in the centre. (ii) Contused abrasion 2" x 1" on the back side of the right shou1der. (iii) Complaint of pain on the back side of the left shoulder. (iv) Complaint of pain on the left buttock. Smt. Sojarbai was medically examined at about 6.45 p.m. and her injury report shows that she sustained the following injury-contused lacerated wound 11/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the head left parietal region left to midline and 3"behind the forehead. In the opinion of Dr. Bhandare the injuries of the said five persons were caused within 24 hours and were attributable to a hard blunt object. On 6-3-1981 at about 10.30 a.m. Smt. Dagadabai Salve was medically examined by Dr. Bhandare. He found that she had sustained a swelling on the left wrist lateral side, super imposed with black abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" on it. Since he suspected the facture of the underlying bone he advised X-ray and the X-ray report revealed fracture of the lower end of the radius. In his opinion the said injury was 5 to 10 days old and could be caused by a hard blunt object. 8. It appears that Uttam died on 1-3-1981. This has been stated by PSI. Subhash Shinde in his examination in chief, (para 5). 9. The investigation was conducted by P.W. 16 PSI Shinde, P.W. 17 PSI Kashinath Talekar and P.W. 18 PSI Krishna Mohale. According to the prosecution during the course of investigation on the pointing out of the appellant a bloodstained knife in the presence of public panchas, under a panchanama, was recovered. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and others. 10. The case was committed to the Court of sessions in the usual manner. In the trial Court the appellant and the acquitted persons were charged under Sections 47, IPC; 148, IPC; 302 read with 149, IPC and 324 read with 149, IPC. To the said charges they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the trial Court, apart from proving sizeable documentary evidence the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses. Three out of them viz. To the said charges they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the trial Court, apart from proving sizeable documentary evidence the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses. Three out of them viz. Harishchandra Salve, Sharda Salve and Balu Ghadge P.Ws. 8, 11 and 12 respectively were examined as eye-witnesses. In defence no witness was examined. The defence case as put to the eye-witnesses was that the deceased Rama Salve and Harishchandra were inimical to the appellant and others because they were cultivating the land of one Sajan between whom and the deceased there was civil litigation. Hence on the date and times alleged by the prosecution while Uttam and others were returning from the market the deceased Rama Salve and Harishchandra assaulted them. Rama Salve with a crow-bar assaulted Uttam and in self-defence Uttam assaulted Rama Salve with a knife and crow-bar. The defence case as put to the eve-witnesses was also that the appellant, the acquitted accused persons and Babu received injuries at the hands of Harishchandra and Rama Salve. Both the said suggestions were denied by the eyewitnesses. 11. The learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above. Hence this appeal. 12. We have heard Mrs. Revati M. Dere for the appellant and Mr. D. A. Nallawade APP for the State of Maharashtra. We have also perused the material exhibits tendered by the prosecution; the evidence of the prosecution witnesses; the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C.; and the impugned judgment. After giving our thoughtful reflection to the matter we are wholly satisfied that there is substance in this appeal and it must be allowed. 13. We have also perused the material exhibits tendered by the prosecution; the evidence of the prosecution witnesses; the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C.; and the impugned judgment. After giving our thoughtful reflection to the matter we are wholly satisfied that there is substance in this appeal and it must be allowed. 13. In para 20 of the judgment the learned trial Judge has held that the prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained by the appellant and others and has referred to the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1976 SC 2263 : (1976 Cri LJ 1736), Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar wherein the Apex Court has held that the inferences to which the failure of the prosecution to explain the injuries of the accused may give rise to, are that the prosecution is suppressing the genesis of the incident; that the witnesses are lying on a material particular; and where there is a defence version of the incident explaining the injuries of the other side the same is rendered probable. 14. In para 30 of the impugned judgment the learned trial Judge has held that the deceased Rama Salve and Harishchandra were the aggressors and the accused must have acted in self-defence. He has also held that the act of the appellant of inflicting the knife injuries on the person of Rama Salve was within the ambit of his right of private defence. However, in his view inasmuch as after Rama Salve had fallen down pursuant to the assault made by the appellant, the appellant thereafter did not act within the province of the right of private defence when he assaulted him with a crow-bar. Hence in his view he was guilty of an offence under Section 302, IPC. 15. In our view the weight of the evidence on record did not justify the learned trial Judge to record the finding mentioned in paragraph 14 and he grossly erred in recording the same. We now give our reasons for saying so. In the instant case three eye-witnesses viz. Harishchandra. Sharda and Balu Ghadge P.Ws. 8, 11 and 12 were examined by the prosecution. It is significant to note that neither Harishchandra nor Balu have stated in their depositions that the appellant assaulted the deceased with a crow bar after he had fallen down. We now give our reasons for saying so. In the instant case three eye-witnesses viz. Harishchandra. Sharda and Balu Ghadge P.Ws. 8, 11 and 12 were examined by the prosecution. It is significant to note that neither Harishchandra nor Balu have stated in their depositions that the appellant assaulted the deceased with a crow bar after he had fallen down. Out of them Balu Ghadge is a wholly independent witness. It is true that Sharda P.W. 11 did state that the appellant assaulted the deceased with a crow bar but she is a highly interested witness being the daughter of the deceased. We are surprised that the learned trial Judge has ignored the evidence of Harishchandra and Balu, the latter being a wholly independent witness, and instead accepted Sharada's evidence. We do not want to sound sarcastic but the short and long of the whole thing has been that the trial Judge has given, if we may so say, the benefit of doubt to the prosecution. The approach of the learned trial Judge is against all norms and canons of assessment of evidence. The right of private defence of person is a valuable right conferred by the Indian Penal Code. A liberal approach in assessing evidence pertaining to it should be adopted by Courts. When there is conflicting evidence of witnesses, the evidence of some being compatible with the inference that the accused may have acted in the exercise of the right of private defence and that of some pointing to the converse conclusion it is a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that the evidence favouring the accused should be accepted by Courts. In the case in hand, the very antithesis of this principle has been followed by the learned Judge. He has ignored the evidence of Harishchandra and Balu who did not depose that the appellant assaulted the deceased with a crow-bar and believed that of Sharda who did say so. He believed the minority as against the majority and that too without any reason. According to the learned Judge it was this assault by crow-bar by the appellant on the deceased which converted his act from a defensive one into a homicidal assault. In our view the learned trial Judge was grossly unjustified in ignoring the evidence of Harishchandra and Balu and in accepting that of Sharda. According to the learned Judge it was this assault by crow-bar by the appellant on the deceased which converted his act from a defensive one into a homicidal assault. In our view the learned trial Judge was grossly unjustified in ignoring the evidence of Harishchandra and Balu and in accepting that of Sharda. We however accept the evidence of Harishchandra and Balu and ignore that of Sharda. Once we do this the act of the appellant remains within the parameters of the right of private defence. That being so on this point alone this appeal has to succeed. 16. We may also mention that the defence version of the incident is more probable than that of the prosecution. We have narrated the manner in which the incident took place according to the prosecution in para 2. We would, however, like to add that Harishchandra P.W. 8, the son of the deceased and the other two eye-witnesses have not assigned any motive for the incident. On the other hand the defence version of the incident spells out a reason for Harishchandra and Rama Salve launching an aggression on Uttam and others. The defence case is that the deceased Rama Salve and Harishchandra were inimical to the appellant and others because they were cultivating the land of one Sajan between whom and the deceased there was civil litigation. The defence suggestion is that on account of this fact while on the date and time of the incident given out by the prosecution, Uttam and others were returning from the market the deceased Rama Salve and Harishchandra assaulted them. Rama Salve had a crow-bar in his hand with which he assaulted Uttam. In self-defence Uttam assaulted Rama Salve with a knife and a crow-bar. The defence suggestion also is that they assaulted the appellant, the acquitted persons, and Babu. These suggestions were put to the eye-witnesses but they denied them. We are not prepared to accept their denial. We feel that they are suppressing the truth. It is also significant to point out that during cross-examination it was suggested to Harishchandra about the appellant's cultivating Sajan's land and he (Harishchandra) and Rama Salve asking him not to cultivate the same. He did not deny it but only pleaded ignorance about it. To us it appears that there is truth in this suggestion. 17. It is also significant to point out that during cross-examination it was suggested to Harishchandra about the appellant's cultivating Sajan's land and he (Harishchandra) and Rama Salve asking him not to cultivate the same. He did not deny it but only pleaded ignorance about it. To us it appears that there is truth in this suggestion. 17. We would like to point out that during cross-examination both Harishchandra P.W. 8 and Sharda P.W. 11 were confronted with that portion of their statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. wherein they stated that the crow-bar with which the assault was made by the appellant belonged to them. Realising the implications of the said fact in their statements under Section 161, Cr. P. C. both of them in the trial Court when confronted with it denied having said that had stated that the crow-bar belong to them. We certainly are not prepared to accept this denial of theirs. To us it appears to be a part of their play to show that they were not the aggressors. 18. Our view about the plausibility of the defence version of the incident is also reinforced by the fact that the number of injuries sustained on the side of the defence is substantially larger than those on the side of the prosecution. This is borne out from paragraphs 4, 5 and 7; whereas in paragraphs 4 and 5 we have mentioned the injuries sustained on the side of the prosecution, in paragraph 7 we have detailed the injuries suffered on the side of the defence. It is true that there is no inflexible rule of law that the party which sustained smaller number of injuries is the aggressor and that which suffers a larger number of injuries is the victim of aggression. However, more than often, it is found, and the present case is one of those cases, that the number of injuries is a very significant circumstances for determining as to who is the aggressor. The rationale on which this principle is founded is that a party which goes to launch the assault would go well prepared and well armed in defence and, therefore, naturally would inflict more injuries than which it receives from the other side in its self-defence. The rationale on which this principle is founded is that a party which goes to launch the assault would go well prepared and well armed in defence and, therefore, naturally would inflict more injuries than which it receives from the other side in its self-defence. In the instant case we are implicitly satisfied that the circumstance that on, the side of defence a larger number of injuries have been sustained as compared to the prosecution side shows that it was the prosecution side which was the aggressor. 19. For the reasons stated above we find that the defence version of the incident is far more convincing and cogent than the prosecution version of the incident. 20. We are of the view that the learned trial Judge, erred in not accepting the evidence of Harishchandra and Balu Ghadge wherein there is no mention of the appellant assaulting the deceased with a crow bar after he had fallen down. We accept their evidence. The implications of our doing this would mean that on the own finding of the learned trial Judge obtained in paragraph 30, the appellant had the (right) of private defence of person to kill the deceased. Hence in our view, he committed no offence. 21. In the result this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302, IPC. recorded vide the impugned judgment is set aside. He is acquitted of the said offence. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged. Before parting with this judgment we would be failing in our duty if we do not put on record our appreciation for the assistance which we have received from the counsel for the parties in the disposal of this appeal. Issuance of certified copy expedited. Appeal allowed.