Judgment J.C. Gupta, J. (1) Order dated 3.2.1983 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria in Sessions Trial No. 348 of 1978 convicting both the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentencing them to life imprisonment is under challenge in this appeal. (2) The incident, which led to the prosecution of the appellants, occurred at about 5.30 in the morning on 12.7.1978. Both the appellants are real brothers being sons of Sheo Balak Misra. It is said that on the aforesaid date and time, appellants Prem Shanker and Hari Shanker armed with knife and lathi respectively arrived at the 'Gotha' of the deceased Mohan Mishra and Hari Shanker started beating Mohan with lathi and also asked his brother Prem Shanker to kill him, whereupon appellant Prem Shanker assaulted Mohan with knife. On the cries of Mohan, his brother R.P. Mishra, P.W. 1 who was washing his hands at the Hand Pump installed in the east of 'Gotha' of Rama Kant Mishra, rushed to the scene of occurrence. The cries also attracted Ramakant Mishra, P.W. 2, Suresh Mishra, P.W. 4, Shiv Sahai and Vibhuti Mishra. Ramakant Mishra tried to rescue Mohan but he too was assaulted by Prem Shanker with knife. Mohan Mishra fell down on the ground. The witnesses succeeded in apprehending appellant Prem Shanker along with the knife with which he assaulted Mohan and Ramakant, however, appellant Hari Shanker succeeded in making his escape good. Thereafter Ram Pyarey Mishra and other witnesses proceeded to police station Kotwali along with Mohan Mishra and appellant Prem Shanker on tractor trolley of Gangotri Mishra. Before they could reach police station, Mohan Mishra died on the way. R.P. Mishra, P.W. 1 prepared F.I.R. Ex. Ka-1 in his own hand writing and presented the same at police station Kotwali at 6.30 a.m. on the same day. Appellant Prem Shanker and blood stained knife, Ex. 1 recovered from him were handed over to police at the police station, in respect of which memo Ex. Ka-2 was prepared by Head Moharrir, P.W. 6 who also prepared Check report and registered the case in general diary. S.I. Harish Nath Singh, P.W. 5 was present at the police station when the F.I.R. was lodged. He took up investigation and recorded the statement of first information at the police station. Ka-2 was prepared by Head Moharrir, P.W. 6 who also prepared Check report and registered the case in general diary. S.I. Harish Nath Singh, P.W. 5 was present at the police station when the F.I.R. was lodged. He took up investigation and recorded the statement of first information at the police station. S.I. Radhey Shyam Tewari conducted inquest on the dead body of Mohan Mishra which had been brought to the police station by first informant and others. The dead body was then sent for post-mortem examination with constables Ram Asrey and Rang Nath. After recording the statements of Shiv Sahai and Suresh Mishra, P.W. 4, the Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence along with first informant and witness Shiv Sahai. He made inspection of the scene of occurrence and prepared site plan Ex. Ka-13. The place where blood was found has been shown by letter 'A' in the site plan. Hari Shanker appellant was arrested on the same day. Injured Ramakant Mishra was, however, interrogated on 13.7.1978 and after computing the investigation on 15.7.1978 charge-sheet Ex. Ka-15 was submitted against both the appellants. Dr. Shyam Lal Vermpal, P.W. 3 medically examined Ramakant Mishra on 12.7.1978 at 9 a.m. and he found only one injury Lacerated wound 1/2' 1/4' muscle deep on root of left middle finger on outer side. Injury report of Ramakant Mishra is Ex. Ka-3. In the opinion of Dr. Vermpal injury was simple, fresh and caused by blunt object. (3) Dr. Vermpal also conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mohan Mishra on 12.7.1978 at 12 noon and following ante-mortem injuries were found:- (1) Incised wound 2" 1/4" skin deep on right side forehead 1" above the right eye brow and 1-1/2" away from right ear margins clean cut, gaping present, blood clots present and wound was horizontally placed. (2) Incised wound 1" 1/4" muscle deep on middle of left arm margins clean cut, gaping present, blood clots present. (3) Punctured wound 1-1/4" 1/2" chest cavity deep on right side chest 1" outer to mid line chest and 4" away and above to right nipple, lying vertically, margins clean cut gaping present, blood clots present. In the internal examination pleura was found congested and cut underneath injury No. 3, right lung had also a cut mark 3/4" 1/2" pulmonary vessels had also been cut. The chest cavity contained fresh blood about 520 ml. In the internal examination pleura was found congested and cut underneath injury No. 3, right lung had also a cut mark 3/4" 1/2" pulmonary vessels had also been cut. The chest cavity contained fresh blood about 520 ml. Stomach was empty while large intestines contained gases and faecal matter. In the opinion of the doctor death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The post-mortem report is Ex. Ka-4. (4) The motive for assaulting Mohan Mishra as alleged in the first information report was that on 10.7.1978 Prem Shanker appellant had made an attempt to have carnal intercourse with Ramesh son of Mohan Mishra, deceased and Rakesh told this fact to his father. Mohan deceased accosted accused Prem Shanker whereupon the latter threatened him with dire consequences. To substantiate charges against the appellants, prosecution produced 6 witnesses. They are P.W. 1 R.P. Mishra, first informant and younger brother of deceased Mohan Mishra; P.W. 2 Ramakant Mishra, an eye-witness P.W. 3; Dr. Shyam Lal Vermpal, who proved injury report of R.P. Mishra and post-mortem report of deceased Mohan Mishra; P.W. 4 Suresh Mishra, an eye-witness; P.W. 5 Harsh Nath Singh, Investigating Officer and P.W. 6 Head Moharrir Nazir Uddin. (5) Appellant Hari Shanker in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. denied the prosecution allegations and put a counter version that on the date of occurrence when his brother Prem Shanker went to throw cow dung in the 'Gher' in the morning, he was assaulted by Mohan Mishra with lathi. On the cries raised by Prem Shanker, his younger brother Hari Shanker came there bringing ballam (spear) with him and in order to save Prem Shanker, he assaulted Mohan Mishra in defence. Statement of Prem Shanker was also to the same effect. (6) In defence accused persons produced Dr. M.S. Alam as D.W. 1 who had medically examined appellant Prem Shanker in jail on 12.7.1978 at 5 p.m. The following injuries were found on the person of appellant Prem Shanker. (1) Lacerated wound 1/2" 1/10" bone deep left leg front middle. (2) Contused swelling 6" around the left forearm. Upper half kept under observation. (3) Contusion multiple in number overlapping each other in an area 6" 4" on the upper part back of chest. (4) Contusion 3" 1/3" on the left side back of chest oblique in direction. (1) Lacerated wound 1/2" 1/10" bone deep left leg front middle. (2) Contused swelling 6" around the left forearm. Upper half kept under observation. (3) Contusion multiple in number overlapping each other in an area 6" 4" on the upper part back of chest. (4) Contusion 3" 1/3" on the left side back of chest oblique in direction. (5) Two abrasions 1/2" 1/10" and 1/4" 1/10" on upper lumber region. (6) Abrasion 1/2" 1/4" on the right elbow back and outer part. (7) Abrasion 1/4" 1/1" on the left upper lid outer part. (8) Abraded contused swelling 2" 1" on the left side cheek middle. (9) Abrasion 1/2" 1/4" on the right forehead upper part. (10) Abrasion 1/10" 1/10" on the left ear. All the injuries were simple except injury No. 2 which was kept under observation and were about half day old. Dr. Alam further stated that after X-ray examination injury No. 2 showed fracture of Ulna bone, hence this injury was grievous in nature and all the injuries could have been caused by lathi at 5-5.30 a.m. on 12.7.1978. Injury report of accused Prem Shanker has been proved as Ex. Kha. 1. On appraisal of evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the defence case that injuries on the deceased Mohan Mishra were inflicted by appellant Hari Shanker in self-defence of Prem Shanker has not been established and appeared to have been developed during trial. The learned Sessions Judge has further found that the prosecution case against the appellants has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly he has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. (7) We have heard Shri P.N. Mishra, Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellants and the learned A.G.A. for the State. (8) Shri P.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants submitted before us that the learned Sessions Judge fell into an error in expecting the same standard of proof of a defence plea as is required to be discharged by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. He further submitted that there is a great amount of doubt if Ramakant Mishra, P.W. 2 received any injury in the manner alleged by the prosecution and once the theory of snatching knife is discarded, the defence story gets probabilised. It was further submitted that it is highly doubtful if Mohan Mishra was assaulted with knife Ex. He further submitted that there is a great amount of doubt if Ramakant Mishra, P.W. 2 received any injury in the manner alleged by the prosecution and once the theory of snatching knife is discarded, the defence story gets probabilised. It was further submitted that it is highly doubtful if Mohan Mishra was assaulted with knife Ex. 1 alleged to have been used by appellant Prem Shanker. He also submitted that the injuries found on the person of appellant Prem Shanker have not been satisfactorily explained and the explanation put forward by the prosecution with regard to the injuries of appellant Prem Shanker does not fit in with the circumstances appearing in the case. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. supporting the judgment in appeal submitted that the evidence furnished by the prosecution consisted of independent, natural and probable witnesses. Injuries of appellant Prem Shanker have been satisfactorily explained and, therefore, the prosecution case against the appellants has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt. The factum of death of Mohan Mishra on account of injuries sustained by him has neither been challenged nor disputed before us by the appellant's counsel. The fact that Mohan Mishra died a homicidal death is fully established not only from the evidence of the eye-witnesses but also from the statement of Dr. Vermpal, P.W. 3 and the post-mortem examination report Ex. Ka-4. (9) He has now to be seen whether the incident in question occurred in the manner as alleged by the prosecution and whether on the basis of evidence and from the circumstances appearing in the case, defence version is probabilised. If so, can benefit of doubt be given to the appellants on their plea of self-defence? (10) Out of the six witnesses examined at the trial by the prosecution, three witnesses, namely, P.W. 1, Ram Pyarey Mishra, P.W. 2, Rama Kant and P.W. 4, Suresh Mishra are witnesses of fact. First of all, we may deal with the motive part of the prosecution case, P.W. 1 Ram Pyarey Mishra stated that only two days prior to the occurrence in question, Prem Shanker appellant had attempted to commit sodomy on Rakesh, son of Mohan Mishra, and when Rakesh complained to his father about this act of appellant, Mohan Mishra scolded appellant Prem Shanker, whereupon Prem Shanker threatened Mohan Mishra with dire consequences. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that he himself was not present but was told of the above incident by his brother Mohan Mishra in the preceding night of the incident and at that time, Rakesh was also present. He further stated that he was not aware if the aforesaid incident was witnessed by any other person or not but admitted that he himself was not present at the time when Mohan Mishra had accosted appellant Prem Shanker. Though he admitted that many villagers were present when appellant threatened the deceased but he did not disclose their names. Interestingly the Investigating Officer did not also interrogate Rakesh till the submission of charge-sheet against the appellants on 15.7.1978. He was interrogated only on 20.9.1978. However, for the reasons best known to the prosecuting agency, Rakesh was withheld and not produced at the trial. As admitted by Shri Ram Pyarey Mishra himself, he was not present at any point of time either when Mohan Mishra scolded appellant Prem Shanker or when appellant Prem Shanker threatened Mohan Mishra with dire consequences and since Rakesh, the most material witness has not been examined at the trial, we find that the motive alleged by the prosecution has not been properly substantiated. (11) However, the mere fact that the motive as alleged by the prosecution has not been fully proved, the evidence of the three eye-witnesses cannot be thrown overboard merely on that ground. It is well established that where direct evidence regarding assault is available and is found worthy of credence and reliable, the absence of motive looses significance and recedes behind the curtain. The absence of motive relating to the cause of attack cannot adversely affect the prosecution case which if otherwise is found trustworthy. In the case of Qusiakose and another vs. State of Kerala, JT 1994 (1) SC 268, it was held that if the murderous assault is established by clear and clinching evidence of eye-witnesses, it is not necessary to investigate the motive behind such commission of offence. (12) In the present case, the allegation of the prosecution was that only two days prior to the date of incident, appellant Prem Shanker had made an attempt to have carnal intercourse with Rakesh son of the deceased who reported that matter to his father. (12) In the present case, the allegation of the prosecution was that only two days prior to the date of incident, appellant Prem Shanker had made an attempt to have carnal intercourse with Rakesh son of the deceased who reported that matter to his father. On coming to know of this immoral act of appellant Prem Shanker, it was but natural that some amount of annoyance must have been caused to Mohan Mishra. This circumstance goes in support of the defence argument that finding Prem Shanker appellant alone in the morning of the date of incident, Mohan Mishra assaulted him with lathi. In this view of the matter, the evidence of the eye-witnesses produced at the trial has to be scrutinized in a careful and cautious manner. Ram Pyarey Mishra P.W. 1 is admittedly younger brother of deceased Mohan Mishra. He has proved F.I.R. as Ex.Ka.-1. Before the trial, he stated that at the time of incident, he was present at the hand pump in the 'Gotha' of Rama Kant Mishra P.W. 2 as he was washing his hands there. His attention was drawn by the cries of Mohan Mishra and he saw that appellant Hari Shanker was assaulting Mohan Mishra with lathi. Seeing this he along with Rama Kant Mishra P.W. 2, Suresh Mishra P.W. 4, Shiv Sahai and Vibhuti Mishra rushed towards the scene of occurrence and while he was advancing towards that side, he heard Hari Shanker asking appellant Prem Shanker not to leave Mohan Mishra alive, whereupon Prem Shanker gave 3-4 knife blows on Mohan Mishra as a result of which he fell down on the ground. When Rama Kant Mishra intervened to save Mohan Mishra from further beating, he was attacked by Prem Shanker as a result of which he also suffered knife injuries. Prem Shanker appellant was apprehended on the spot along with knife, Ex. 1 by the witnesses but his associate Hari Shanker succeeded in making his escape good. It is worthwhile to mention here that in the F.I.R. it was specifically alleged in clear words that Hari Shanker gave a beating to Mohan Mishra with lathis but during autopsy, no blunt object injury of any kind was found on the deceased. 1 by the witnesses but his associate Hari Shanker succeeded in making his escape good. It is worthwhile to mention here that in the F.I.R. it was specifically alleged in clear words that Hari Shanker gave a beating to Mohan Mishra with lathis but during autopsy, no blunt object injury of any kind was found on the deceased. Faced with this situation, R.P. Mishra P.W. 1 made an improvement for the first time in the trial court that when Hari Shanker was hurling lathi blows on Mohan Mishra, he saved himself and did not sustain any lathi injury. There was not even a whisper in the F.I.R. that Mohan Mishra saved himself and did not suffer any injury at the hands of Hari Shanker. On the other hand, if we go through the report the necessary inference would be that as per the first informant, Mohan Mishra was given a beating by Hari Shanker appellant with lathi. P.W. 1 Ram Pyarey Mishra made yet another improvement at the trial when he stated that appellant Hari Shanker caught hold of Mohan when Prem Shanker attacked him. He also stated for the first time in the trial court that Hari Shanker while running away from the spot dropped the lathi on the scene of occurrence. This improvement perhaps was made because of the consciousness of the witnesses regarding the use of lathi by Mohan Mishra on Prem Shanker appellant as suggested by the defence. With regard to the injuries of Prem Shanker appellant, this witness stated that the deceased was empty handed and had not made any attempt to save himself by making use of lathi. He further admitted that he and other witnesses were all empty handed and none had made use of lathi and Prem Shanker was given a beating by kicks and fists only during the course of his arrest by the witnesses and he was not assaulted by lathi by any person. It is further stated by him that when Rama Kant Mishra attempted to catch hold of Prem Shanker by snatching knife from him, he was given a knife blow by appellant Prem Shanker in a piercing manner. The knife cannot easily be snatched without suffering injuries on the palm. Appellant Prem Shanker is not likely to be assaulted by fists and kicks unless he is disarmed. The knife cannot easily be snatched without suffering injuries on the palm. Appellant Prem Shanker is not likely to be assaulted by fists and kicks unless he is disarmed. (13) P.W. 2 Rama Kant Mishra also gave out almost similar facts in his statement recorded before the trial court. He also stated that when he tried to catch hold of knife from the hands of Prem Shanker, he received a knife injury in his hand. In cross-examination, he stated that when appellant hurled knife the same struck on his hand and he snatched the same from its blade side. According to him also, he did not cause any injury to the accused but he was given a beating by the villagers who had gathered there after the incident. (14) P.W. 3, Suresh Mishra is another eye-witness who has supported the prosecution case. According to him, first of all appellant Hari Shanker assaulted the deceased with lathi and thereafter appellant Prem Shanker inflicted knife blows on Mohan Mishra and when Rama Kant Mishra tried to snatch the knife he also suffered a knife injury in his hand. He stated that when appellant Prem Shanker was apprehended, he was given 2-3 slaps but later on villagers also assaulted him. It has also come in his statement that he had accompanied the first informant to the police station and deceased Mohan Mishra breathed his last on the way. When they reached the police station, Darogaji (Sub-Inspector) wrote down the report and thereafter the same was handed over to Ram Pyarey Mishra. He further stated that he was not sure if Ram Pyarey Mishra himself scribed the report or got it written from someone else. According to him, when appellant Prem Shanker raised his hands to use the knife on Rama Kant Mishra, the latter caught hold of knife and in the process suffered a knife injury as its blade had come in between two fingers. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that it was highly doubtful that Rama Kant Mishra received any injury from knife Ex. 1 in the manner alleged by the prosecution. As per the injury report of Rama Kant Mishra Ex. Ka-3, only one lacerated injury 1/2" 1/4" muscle deep on the root of left middle finger on outer side was found. In the opinion of Dr. 1 in the manner alleged by the prosecution. As per the injury report of Rama Kant Mishra Ex. Ka-3, only one lacerated injury 1/2" 1/4" muscle deep on the root of left middle finger on outer side was found. In the opinion of Dr. Vermpal, this injury was caused by a blunt object or from knife Ex. 1, if the same was used from its blunt side during the course of scuffle. P.W. 1 Ram Pyarey Mishra stated before the Court that appellant Prem Shanker inflicted knife blow on the hand of Rama Kant Mishra in a piercing manner. Rama Kant P.W. 2 stated that when appellant Prem Shanker hurled knife over him, it struck on his hand and thereafter he snatched the same from its blade side using full force. As Per P.W. 3 Suresh Mishra, when appellant Prem Shanker raised his arm and used knife on Rama Kant, he caught hold of knife and in the process suffered knife injury because its blade had come in between two fingers. It would thus be found that if knife was inflicted on Rama Kant Mishra in the manner as alleged by the witnesses, in all probability Rama Kant Mishra should have suffered an incised or piercing injury and not a blunt object injury. We are not prepared to accept the argument of the State counsel that even if knife, Ex. 1, was used in a piercing manner or the fingers of Rama Kant Mishra had come in close contact with the sharp edged side of the blade of knife during the course of scuffle and knife was snatched by gripping it with all strength from its sharp edged side, yet Rama Kant Mishra would receive only a blunt object injury on the wrist and not any incised injury. We thus find substance in the above submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that it is highly doubtful that Rama Kant Mishra did receive injury during the course of incident in the manner as alleged by the witnesses. (15) It was next submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that it is also doubtful if injury No. 3 of deceased Mohan Mishra could be caused by knife Ex. 1. After seeing knife Ex. 1, Dr. Vermpal admitted that one side of the same was sharp while the other thick and blunt. (15) It was next submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that it is also doubtful if injury No. 3 of deceased Mohan Mishra could be caused by knife Ex. 1. After seeing knife Ex. 1, Dr. Vermpal admitted that one side of the same was sharp while the other thick and blunt. Injury No. 3 of the deceased was a punctured wound 1-1/2" 1/2" chest cavity deep on right side of chest, 4" above the right nipple, lying vertically. Its margins were clean cut on both ends and gaping was present. The internal examination further revealed that underneath this injury pleura, right lung and pulmonary vessels were cut. It is thus apparent that the weapon with which this injury was caused had gone quite deep in the chest cavity. As per the eye-witness account, this injury was also caused by appellant Prem Shanker with knife Ex. 1. However, Dr. Vermpal did not find any tailing in injury No. 3. He was very specific in opinion that from the fact that tailing was absent and injury No. 3 had gone deep with constant width, most likely knife Ex. 1 was not used in inflicting this injury he further agreed with the defence suggestion that it was more probable that injury No. 3 was caused by a weapon like ballam which has both its sides sharp. We have ourselves examined this aspect of the matter carefully and we agree with the opinion expressed by Dr. Vermpal that most likely, injury No. 3 was not caused by knife Ex. 1, as one side of its blade was sharp while the other blunt. (16) As per the prosecution case, appellant Prem Shanker was arrested along with knife Ex. 1 and the same was deposited at the police station when the accused was brought by the witnesses. The knife was taken into possession and kept in a sealed bundle because it had blood stains. However, the knife was not sent to chemical examiner or serologist for finding if the same was stained with human blood and further the blood was of the same group as that of the deceased. This lapse on the part of Investigating Officer has assumed much importance in the instant case on account of medical discrepancy which we have already indicated above. This lapse on the part of Investigating Officer has assumed much importance in the instant case on account of medical discrepancy which we have already indicated above. The explanation furnished by the prosecution with regard to injuries of accused Prem Shanker is not at all convincing. The prosecution witnesses have admitted that neither any of the witnesses nor the deceased were armed with any blunt object or any other kind of weapon and the accused was given simple beating with kicks and fists. Appellant Prem Shanker was carried to police station directly from the scene of occurrence. At the police station, the Head Moharrir who lodged him in the lock up had noticed injuries on his person, yet he was not sent for medical examination. Dr. M.S. Alam, D.W. 1, however, examined appellant Prem Shanker inside jail on the same evening at 5 p.m. and he found as many as 10 injuries. Fracture of ulna bone was also found in the X-ray examination, accordingly injury No. 2 was reported to be grievous. Dr. Alam has further stated that all injuries of Prem Shanker appellant were caused by blunt object like lathi and could have been received by him at about 5.30 a.m. on 12.3.1978. Injury No. 1 was a lacerated wound 1/2" 1/10" bone deep, injury No. 2 was a contused swelling an area of 6" around the left forearm. There were multiple contusions in an area of 6" 4" on the upper back of right side chest. Another contusion of the size 3" 1/3" was found on the left side back of chest. Its direction was oblique. One abraded contused swelling of 2" 1" was also noticed on the left side cheek middle part. In addition to these injuries, five abrasions were also found. In our opinion, all these injuries could not possibly be caused due to mere beating with kicks and fists. The nature and kind of injuries strengthens the defence case that Mohan Mishra assaulted Prem Shanker with lathi. Learned Sessions Judge has rejected the defence version mainly for three reasons, namely, that the same was not disclosed in the bail application that the defence version was first suggested to P.W. 2 Rama Kant Mishra and that no such suggestion was given to the first informant. Learned Sessions Judge has rejected the defence version mainly for three reasons, namely, that the same was not disclosed in the bail application that the defence version was first suggested to P.W. 2 Rama Kant Mishra and that no such suggestion was given to the first informant. Suffice it to state that the contents of bail application alleged to have been moved on behalf of the appellant could not be used against them particularly when the same were not put to them in their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. As regards the second reasoning, we may point out that the defence was not admitting presence of either of the witnesses, moreover it was clearly suggested to P.W. 1 also that Prem Shanker was assaulted by Mohan Mishra with lathi and injuries to Mohan Mishra were caused in self-defence. While cross examining P.W. 2 Rama Kant Mishra, the suggestion put to P.W. 1-Ram Pyarey Mishra was further elaborated by the defence counsel by suggesting the manner in which injuries to Mohan Mishra were caused in self-defence of appellant Prem Shanker. In any view of the matter, it is always open for the accused to take several pleas or to put as many suggestions as his counsel may choose and merely because some inconsistent suggestions were thrown to the witnesses, no advantage of the same can be availed of by the prosecution while discharging the burden of proving the guilt of the accused. The burden to prove the plea of self-defence undoubtedly rests on the defence but that burden seems to have been discharged in the present case from the own evidence of the prosecution and the circumstances appearing in the case. In the instant case, the possibility of appellants acting in self-defence cannot be ruled out, rather on account of medical discrepancy creeping in the prosecution evidence and the injuries of appellant Prem Shanker having not been satisfactorily explained, the defence version that Mohan Mishra was assaulted in exercise of right of private defence of Prem Shanker looks more probable. This inference is further strengthened by the fact that even as per the witnesses, lathi was used in the incident but the deceased did not sustain even a single lathi injury. This inference is further strengthened by the fact that even as per the witnesses, lathi was used in the incident but the deceased did not sustain even a single lathi injury. It is difficult to swallow the story developed at the trial by P.W. 1 that when Hari Shanker was giving lathi blows on Mohan Mishra, he escaped injuries by moving here and there. It has also come in the statement of P.W. 1 Ram Pyarey Mishra that Hari Shanker appellant had left the lathi at the place of incident while running away from the scene of occurrence. We find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that on account of the presence of lathi on the spot, the witnesses were fully conscious of the use of the same in the incident at the hands of Mohan Mishra and for that reason, the first informant gave a twist to the real story by stating in the first information report that Hari Shanker appellant assaulted the deceased with lathi. Complete absence of lathi injury on the deceased and presence of large number of blunt object injuries on accused Prem Shanker probabilises the defence theory that lathi was used by Mohan Mishra in the assault made by him on Prem Shanker appellant. To us it appears that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of occurrence and is guilty of not presenting true facts before the Court. It is well-settled that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and no weakness in the defence case can come to its rescue so far as the burden to prove the guilt of the accused is concerned. Where there is a counter version and even if the same may not have been proved to the hilt on account of non-production of any witness to state about the manner of incident in support of the defence version, it will have no effect upon the prosecution case and the burden will still remain on the prosecution to prove its case satisfactorily and beyond reasonable doubt. Where the version given by the prosecution and the defence are both unreliable and did not explain the situation at all inasmuch as the explanation sought to be given by the prosecution regarding the injuries sustained by the accused is highly unsatisfactory and unbelievable and the defence version has also not been proved by cogent evidence, the accused would still be entitled to the benefit of doubt because the standard of proof which is expected from an accused in support of his plea in defence is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution. Once the evidence on record and the circumstances appearing in the case probabilises the defence plea, he is entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt. The Courts have to take an overall view of the case and if a right of self-defence is made out or looks probable from the evidence on record, that right should not be construed narrowly because the right of self-defence is a very valuable right and it has a social purpose. No person is supposed to act naively and not to defend himself against any aggression. (17) On a careful analysis of the evidence on record, we are unable to sustain the order under appeal as in our opinion the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants and they deserve to get the benefit of doubt. (18) For the reasons stated above this appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence dated 3.2.1983 passed by the trial court is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offences, charged for. They are on bail, they need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.