JUDGMENT Dr. J. N. Dubey, J. These revisions are directed against the order dated 7th September, 1987 or the Additional Sessions Judge X, Patna. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20th May, 1977 at about 8 A.M. when the Informant Rajeshwar Singh, was getting onion uprooted from his Plot No. 1369, the appellants alongwith 20 to 25 persons armed with Bhala, Pharsa and Lathi came and assaulted him, his cousin Jagatsingh and uncle, Bipat, causing serious injuries. The First Information Report of the incident was lodged by Rajeshwar Singh at Police Station, Digha on the same day at about 9.15 A.M. The Police after making necessary investigation submitted the charge sheet, on the basis of which the applicants were tried under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 326 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patna. 3. The applicants denied the charge and contended that on 20th May, 1977 at about 8 A.M. when they went to their Plot no. 1369 they were assaulted by Informant, Rajeshwar Singh, Bipat Singh, Lachuman Singh and 10 to 12 associates causing serious injuries to the applicants Tek Narain Rai, Mahipati Rai and Om Prakash Rai, On coming to know of which informant Rajeshwar Singh lodged First Information Report against the applicants as a counter blast. 1he Judicial Magistrate on coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt, convicted the applicants, Tek Narain Rai, Mahipat Rai and Hari Narain Rai under Sections 448, 148 & 325 and sentenced each of them to under go rigorous imprisonment for one month, three months and two years respectively. He further convicted applicants, Om Prakash Rai, Suraj Rai and Duraj Rai under sections 448, 147 and 325 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, two months and one year respectively, The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The applicants filed appeal to the Sessions Judge, Patna which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge X, Patna on 7th September, 1987, Feeling aggrieved, the applicants have filed these revisions. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The applicants filed appeal to the Sessions Judge, Patna which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge X, Patna on 7th September, 1987, Feeling aggrieved, the applicants have filed these revisions. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that in view of the fact that the applicants were tenants in Possession of the Plot No. 1569 and both the sides had sustained serious injuries, the Courts below wore not legally justified in convicting the applicants. He further contended that the prosecution did not explain the injuries, admittedly sustained by three of the applicants during incident which shows that the prosecution has suppressed the, genesis and origin of the occurrence I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel. Admittedly, applicants, Tek Narain Rai, Mahipal Rai and Om Prakash Rai had sustained serious injuries during the incident but their injuries have not been explained by the prosecution. It is now well settled that failure of the prosecution to explain die injuries on the side of the accused leads to the conclusion that prosecution has not presented true version of the incident. In absence of the finding that either the claim of the applicants that three persons sustained injuries during the incident was false or that the injuries were such which could be manufactured for the purposes of defence, the Courts below not legally justified in convicting the applicants when admittedly the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by them. In absence of the finding that either the claim of the applicants that three persons sustained injuries during the incident was false or that the injuries were such which could be manufactured for the purposes of defence, the Courts below not legally justified in convicting the applicants when admittedly the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by them. My this view finds support from a decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh & others vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 S. C. 2263 in which it was held : “It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the 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 are 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 it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. The omission on the put of the prosecution to explain 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 competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. In the instant case, when it is held, as it must be, that the appellant Dasrath Singh received serious injuries which have not been explained by the prosecution, then it will be difficult for the Court to rely on the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 4 and 6. More particularly, when some of these witnesses have lied by stating that they did not see any injuries on the person of the accused. Thus neither the sessions Judge nor the High Court appears to have given due consideration to this important lacuna or infirmity appearing in the prosecution case. More particularly, when some of these witnesses have lied by stating that they did not see any injuries on the person of the accused. Thus neither the sessions Judge nor the High Court appears to have given due consideration to this important lacuna or infirmity appearing in the prosecution case. We must hasten to add that as add by this court in State of Gujarat V. Bai Fatima, Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1971 decided on March 19, 1975=(Reported in AIR 1975 SC 1478 ) there may be cases where the non explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so indepent and disinterested. so probable, consistent and credit-worthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. The present, however, is certainly not such a case, and the High Court was, therefore, in error in brushing aside this serious infirmity in the prosecution case on unconvincing premises." 6. The applicants were put into possession of Plot No 1369 on 6th May, 1977. a fortnight before the incident, in execution of the decree of the Civil Court in T. S. No. 56 of 1964, and therefore, their claim that they were in possession of the Plot No. 1369 can also not be easily brushed aside. The observation of the Courts below that it was true that the applicants were put into possession of the Plot No. 1369 in execution of a decree of a civil Court on 6th May. 1977 but there were certain mistakes in the order of the Civil Court and as such it was of no legal consequence, is wholly wrong. Once the applicants were put into possession of Plot No. 1369 in execution of the decree of the Civil Court only a fortnight before the incident, there was presumption of the possession in their favour unless it was a case of the prosecution that they were dispossessed there, from for some reason thereafter which have neither been claimed nor proved. Even assuming that the applicants were delivered possession of larger area of Plot No. 1369 in execution of the decree of the Civil Court then for which they were held entitled. Even assuming that the applicants were delivered possession of larger area of Plot No. 1369 in execution of the decree of the Civil Court then for which they were held entitled. The Courts below were not legally justified in holding that the applicants were not in possession of the of Plot No. 1369. The Court below instead of determining the genesis of the occurrence had convicted the applicants on the ground that the prosecution side has sustained larger number of injuries as it would appear from the following observations of the lower appellate court: "It is true that the doctor P. W. 12 has opined that the only injury on the person or Tek Narain was due to gun shot but that was simple. Moreover, from the perusal of the F. I. R. Ext. B in the counter case, it appears that no gun injury rather injury with country made pistol has been alleged. Thus considering the number, nature and over all impact and seriousness of the injuries on both sides, the balance goes in favour of the prosecution.” The conviction of the applicant. cannot be legally sustained on the facts and materials on record. 7. In the result, both the revisions succeed and are allowed. The orders of the Courts below and the conviction and sentence of the applicants are set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. The applicants are on bail. They need not surrender. Sureties are discharged. Application allowed.