This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 8-9-1981 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur convicting the appellant under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution story was that Razzak the deceased resident of Chhoti Bazariya Qaziyana Bindki, district Fatehpur came to Fatehpur city on 19-11-1980 to see Tajiya. He was staying with his mother-in- law, who was residing in the house of the informant Bhole (P. W. 6) at Fakirantola. Appellant Rashid is also resident of Fakirantola. On 20-11-1980 at 10. 30 a. m. Rashid was teasing a mad man in the lane of Fakirantola before the house of Bismillah. The mad man started abusing him. Rashid twisted the hand of the mad man and slapped him two or four times. Amir Hasan (PW 2), Iftiqar Ahmad (PW 1), Kallan (PW 5) Bhole (PW 6) and Razzak (the deceased) asked Rashid not to do so. Razzak got that mad man freed from the hold of Rashid. Razzak told Rashid that such a treatment should not be given to a mad man. Rashid then replied Razzak that he was sympathizing too much with that mad man and he would make him cold. (The words used by Rashid as indicated in the F. I. R. are that "rashid Ne Razak Se Yeh Kahte Hue Ki Tum Bare Hamdard Banker Aye Ho Tumhin Ko Thanda Kiye Deta Hoon" ). Rashid then took out a knife from his trouser and stabbed Razzak on the back. On receiving injury Razzak fell down unconscious on the ground. Rashid pulled out the blood stained knife and started to run away. He was apprehended by the persons present there. Bhole (PW 6) snatched the blood stained knife from the hand of Rashid. Razzak was brought to the Police Station Kotwali on a cot by Bhole (PW 6), Amir Hasan (PW 2), Kallan (PW 5), Iftikhar Ahmad (PW 1) and Rauf. They also brought Rashid to the Police Station Kotwali alongwith blood stained knife (Ext. 1), Bhole P. W. 6 dictated a report (Ext. Ka-5) at 11. 05 a. m. to the Head Constable Rajendra Bahadur Singh (PW 8 ). A case was registered under Section 307 I. P. C. in the G. D. in presence of S. I. Kamta Prasad Tewari (P. W. 7), who was entrusted with the investigation. 1), Bhole P. W. 6 dictated a report (Ext. Ka-5) at 11. 05 a. m. to the Head Constable Rajendra Bahadur Singh (PW 8 ). A case was registered under Section 307 I. P. C. in the G. D. in presence of S. I. Kamta Prasad Tewari (P. W. 7), who was entrusted with the investigation. He received copy of F. I. R. and G. D. after recording the statement of Bhole and proceeded to the place of occurrence where he took out blood stained soil as well as plain soil and prepared Memo (Ext. Ka-6 ). Thereafter, he prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka-7 ). 2. 1. Razzak was sent to Civil Hospital, Fatehpur where his injuries were examined by Dr. S. K. Singh (P. W. 3) at 11. 30 a. m. and since his condition was very bad, he was shifted to the surgical side where he died at 11. 43 a. m. 2. 2. Following injuries were found by the Doctor on the body of Razzak: "incised wound right side of back 3 cm. x 0-5 cm. x chest cavity deep at the level of angle of scapula 1 cm. lateral to midline in the inter scapular area, low pulse was not palpable and respiration was gasping the patient was conscious. Opinion.-The injury had been caused by some sharp object. Duration fresh. Nature was kept under observation. The patient was admitted on the surgical side. " 2. 3. Due to death of Razzak the case was converted under Section 302 IPC and an entry was made in the G. D. No. 22. Constable Indramani went to the place of occurrence with a copy of G. D. No. 22. Hospital memo and injury report and handed over to I. O. Sri Kamta Prasad Tewari. 2. 4. Sri Kamta Prasad Tewari went to Sadar Hospital alongwith constable Indramani where he prepared an Inquest Report (Ext. Ka- 8), sealed the dead body of Razzak and prepared Challan-nash (Ext. Ka-9), Photo-nash (Ext. Ka-10), letter for post-mortem (Ext. Ka-11) and letter to R. I. for post-mortem (Ext. Ka- 12 ). He also prepared the sample seal (Ext. Ka-13), letter to C. M. O. (Ext. Ka-14 ). He recorded the statements of witnesses Makbool, Kamal and Mukhtar Ahmad residents of Fakirantola and thereafter, returned back to the Police Station where he recorded the statement of accused Rashid and Head Constable Rajendra Bahadur. Ka- 12 ). He also prepared the sample seal (Ext. Ka-13), letter to C. M. O. (Ext. Ka-14 ). He recorded the statements of witnesses Makbool, Kamal and Mukhtar Ahmad residents of Fakirantola and thereafter, returned back to the Police Station where he recorded the statement of accused Rashid and Head Constable Rajendra Bahadur. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of other witnesses and submitted charge- sheet (Ext. Ka-15 ). 2. 5. The blood stained knife (Ext. 1) and blood stained clothes of accused Rashid were sealed in a bundle. The I. O. sent them for chemical examination, the chemical examination report is (Ext. Ka-17 ). The I. O. prepared the inquest report and completed other formalities and thereafter the dead-body was sent to mortuary for post-mortem. 2. 6. The post-mortem on the dead-body was done on 21-11-1980 at 2 p. m. by Dr. V. K. Tripathi, Medical Officer, District Hospital Fatehpur (P. W. 4) who found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased: " (1) Stitched incised wound 1-1/4" x 1/2" x right chest cavity deep on the back right side 1/2" outer to the vertebral column in the 7th intercostals space. It was transverse. On internal examination right pleura of right lung at lower lobe were found cut. Clotted blood in chest was present. Heart was empty. The death was about one day before post-mortem. The cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a result of the above ante- mortem injury. This injury has been caused by some sharp edged weapon such as Chhuri or any other sharp edged weapon. This injury was grievous and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature as it had cut the pleura and right lung. " 3. After submission of the charge-sheet the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and following charges were framed under Section 302 I. P. C. against the accused : "that you on 20-11-80 at about 10. 30 a. m. in Mohalla Fakiran Tola in Gali near the house of Bismillah intentionally caused such injuries with knife to Razzak as were sufficient in ordinary course to cause death and as a result of which Razzak died in hospital the same day at 11. 43 a. m. and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and within my cognizance. 43 a. m. and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and within my cognizance. And I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court on the said charge. " 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined Iftikhar Ahmad (PW 1), Amir Hasan (PW 2), Dr. S. K. Singh (PW 3), Dr. V. K. Tripathi (PW 4), Kallan (PW 5), Bhole (PW 6), I. O. Kamta Prasad Tripathi (PW 7) and the Head Constable Rajendra Bahadur Singh (PW 8 ). 5. The Appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. admitted that Razzak was son-in-law of the sister of Bhole PW 6 and that his mother-in-law is window and lives with Bhole P. W. 6, that Razzak, had come to see Tajiya in Fatehpur city, but denied rest of the prosecution case. He stated that on 20-11- 1980 at about 10. 30 a. m. in Fakirantola Razzak was assaulting a mad man he intervened and got that mad man freed from the hold of Razzak who started abusing him and gave a knife blow which caused injury over his left palm, he then caught hold of his hand and after twisting the hand snatched the knife and threw it on the ground, Razzak then took "barna" and started beating him with it. The mad man then lifted the knife from the ground and gave a knife blow on the back of Razzak who fell down he alongwith others took Razzak to Kotwali alongwith knife, S. I. and Head Constable sent Razzak to the hospital and detained him in Kotwali. Subsequently, Bhole the informant came there, and he was challaned by the police. 6. The Appellant in his defence examined Shubrati D. W. 1 and Dr. P. K. Bajpayee D. W. 2 Medical Officer (Jail) examined the injuries of the appellant in Jail and found following injuries on his person: " (1) Contusion swelling at right upper 1/3 of thigh lateral posterior aspect 6 cm. x 2. 5 cm. Reddish in colour. (2) Contusion 3 cm. x 3 cm. on the right side of head 9 cm. above the right ear and 11 cm. above the right eye brow. Reddish in colour. (3) Abraded contusion 5 cm. x 2. 5 cm. on the back and abrasion was covered with scab. 2 cm. x 5 cm. (4) Incised wound 3 cm. (2) Contusion 3 cm. x 3 cm. on the right side of head 9 cm. above the right ear and 11 cm. above the right eye brow. Reddish in colour. (3) Abraded contusion 5 cm. x 2. 5 cm. on the back and abrasion was covered with scab. 2 cm. x 5 cm. (4) Incised wound 3 cm. x. 2 cm. On the medial 1/2 aspect of the left palm margins clean cut. Duration of wound is lateral to medial and downward covered with lymph and blood 3 cm. above the proximal joint of left little finger. Injuries were simple caused by hard blunt object except injury No. 4 which had been caused by sharp cutting weapon. Duration of injuries was about one day old. " 7. The learned Vth Addl. Sessions Judge after going through the evidence held that the Rashid gave a fatal blow by knife to the deceased Razzak and is not entitled to the benefit of self defence and vide the impugned judgment and order convicted him under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced for imprisonment for life. 8. Sri O. P. Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted as follows: The prosecution has failed to explain the injuries on the person of the appellant who had at best gave a knife blow to Razzak when he was severely beaten by the latter in order to save his life exercised his right of self-defence and was thus entitled to acquittal. It was Razzak who had inflicted the knife injury on the appellant first who had successfully proved that the injury was caused in the exercise of his right of private defence but the learned Additional Sessions Judge had erred in holding otherwise. He relied upon Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, 1977 CAR 28 (SC); Moti Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 (1) JIC 634 (SC); Takha Ji Hiraji v. Thakore Kuber Singh Chaman Singh, 2001 (2) JIC 659 (SC) and Pratap v. State of U. P. , 1976 ACC 167 (SC ). 9. Sri A. K. Verma, learned A. G. A. appearing on behalf of the State supported the judgment and placed reliance on State of Karnataka v. Vedanaygan, 1994 (3) CRIMES 1017 (SC ). 10. Perused the record and the decisions cited at the Bar. 11. 9. Sri A. K. Verma, learned A. G. A. appearing on behalf of the State supported the judgment and placed reliance on State of Karnataka v. Vedanaygan, 1994 (3) CRIMES 1017 (SC ). 10. Perused the record and the decisions cited at the Bar. 11. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place in a lane of Mohalla Fakirantola of the city of Fatehpur in front of the house of Bismillah. The time and date of occurrence is about 10. 30 a. m. on 20-11-1980. The place and time of occurrence alleged by the prosecution has not been challenged by the appellant. It is admitted in the statement of accused Rashid under Section 313 Cr. P. C. and in the evidence of D. W. 1. Subrati that Sri K. P. Tripathi, P. W. 7 had collected blood stained and plain earth, material Exts. 4 and 5 from the place of the occurrence and according to the report of the Chemical Examiner Ext. Ka-18, these blood stains were of human blood. 12. The origin of the quarrel, according to the prosecution case, is that a mad man came in the Gali of Mohalla Fakirantola some time before the occurrence. At about 10. 30 a. m. on 20-11-1980 accused Rashid was teasing the mad man. Rashid slapped that mad man 3-4 times and twisted his hand, Razzak came there and asked Rashid accused not to tease the mad man and when he did not do so, Razzak freed the hand of mad man from the hold of Rashid then Rashid told Razzak "rashid Ne Razzak Se Yeh Kahte Hue Ki Tum Bare Hamdard Banker Aye Ho Tumhin Ko Thanda Kiye Deta Hoon". When Razzak turned up and started to go Rashid took out knife from the pocket of trouser and stabbed Razzak on the back; Razzak fell down unconscious; Bhole P. W. 6 with the help of other witnesses Maqbool and Jamil apprehended the accused and snatched the knife. They took the accused Rashid to police station Kotwali. Iftikhar Ahmad P. W. 1, Amir Hasan P. W. 2, Kallan P. W. 5 and Bhole P. W. 6 have supported the prosecution case. These four eye-witnesses are inter-related to each other. Bhole P. W. 6 is the informant and the deceased was son-in-law of his sister who resides in his house in Mohalla Fakirantola since she was divorced by his brother-in-law Munnan. These four eye-witnesses are inter-related to each other. Bhole P. W. 6 is the informant and the deceased was son-in-law of his sister who resides in his house in Mohalla Fakirantola since she was divorced by his brother-in-law Munnan. Chhote P. W. 5 is maternal uncle of the wife of deceased Razzak. Deceased Razzak is nephew of Amir Hasan P. W. 2. Bhole P. W. 6 and Amir Hasan P. W. 2 are inter-related with the deceased they are resident of Fakirantola where occurrence took place. Iftiqar Ahmad P. W. 1 and Kallan P. W. 5 are resident of Mohalla Collectorganj which is at a distance of about 1 km. from the place of occurrence, they are related to each other and according to Kallan P. W. 5 they reside in the same house. 13. In cross-examination a question was put to the eye-witnesses Iftikhar Ahmad P. W. 1 whether he had seen any other person giving knife blow to Razzak or Rashid. He denied. Similarly a question was put to Kallan P. W. 5 with regard to origin of the incident he told that there was exchange of abuses between accused Rashid and Razzak deceased but he denied that it was Razzak who gave knife blow to Rashid accused. Bhole P. W. 6 has also denied the assertion made by the accused. Amir Hasan P. W. 2 has admitted that Iftikhar Ahmad P. W. 1 is also relative of Razzak deceased Iftikhar Ahmad P. W. 1 and Kallan P. W. 5 reside at a distance of 1 km. They were going back after seeing Tajiya and when they reached the place of occurrence they saw the present incident. He, however, has admitted in the cross-examination that he came out from his house on hearing exchange of abuses between Razzak and Rashid and then he saw Razzak pulling out knife and giving knife blow to the accused Rashid over his left palm thereafter, Rashid snatched the knife and threw away it then Razzak started beating with Barna (Bana) and then Rashid took out knife from the pocket of has Pant and stabbed Razzak on his back but he, however, denied the assertion that it was the mad man who had stabbed Razzak. This witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution and was not re-cross examined on this point. This witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution and was not re-cross examined on this point. We find his statement to be more reliable since he is related with the accused and his house is at a distance of 25 paces from the place of the occurrence. 14. In his statement Rashid has given his version regarding the origin of the incident. This finds support from the statement of Subrati, D. W. 1 Rashid has received injury over left palm which was examined by Dr. P. K. Bajpayee, Medical Officer (Jail) on 21- 11-1980 at 4-10 p. m. The injury report is Ext. Kha-1. He found: (1) contusion swelling at right upper 1/3 of thigh lateral posterior aspect 6 cm. x 2. 5 cm. Reddish in colour (2) contusion 3cm. x 3 cm. On the right side of head 9 cm. above the right ear and 11 cm. above the right eye-brow. Reddish in colour (3) Abraded contusion 5 cm. x 2. 5 cm. on the back and abrasion was covered with scab 2 cm. x 5 cm. and (4) Incised wound 3 cm. x 2 cm. on the medial 1/2 aspect of the left palm margins clean out. Duration of wound is lateral to medial and downward covered with lymph and blood 3 cm. above the proximal joint of left little finger. Injuries were simple caused by hard blunt object except injury No. 4 which had been caused by sharp cutting weapon. Duration of injuries was about one day old. In cross-examination Dr. Bajpayee D. W. 2 has stated that injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3 cannot be self inflicted and duration may be of six hours. The statement of Dr. Bajpayee clearly shows that these injuries might have been caused about 10. 30 a. m. on 20-11-1980. According to Dr. Bajpayee these injuries cannot be caused between 8 a. m. to 9 a. m. 15. Now it is to be seen whether injuries found on the person of accused were caused while apprehending the accused after some time of the occurrence? These questions were specially put to eye witnesses in the cross-examination. 30 a. m. on 20-11-1980. According to Dr. Bajpayee these injuries cannot be caused between 8 a. m. to 9 a. m. 15. Now it is to be seen whether injuries found on the person of accused were caused while apprehending the accused after some time of the occurrence? These questions were specially put to eye witnesses in the cross-examination. 15-A. It has been held by Honble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar, 1977 CAR 28 (SC), that in a murder case the non-explanation of 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 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; and (3) that in a 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. " In State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima and another, in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1971 decided on March 19,1975 quoted in Laxmi Singh (supra), it was observed and held as follows: "in a situation like this when the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the person of an accused, depending on the acts of each case, any of the three results may follow: (1) That the accused had inflicted the injuries on the members of the prosecution party in exercise of the right of self defence. (2) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (3) It does not affect the prosecution case at all. " In Moti Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 (1) JIC 634 (SC), the apex Court has held that the crucial factor is not what the accused pleaded, but whether the accused had the cause to reasonably apprehend such danger and that a different plea adopted by the accused would not foreclose the judicial consideration on the existence of such a situation. It was held in the case of Pratap v. State of U. P. , 1976 ACC 167 (SC), that even if the appellant did not fully establish his plea, yet there is sufficient evidence, both direct and circumstantial to justify the finding that the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused an essential ingredient of the offence of murder, the plea of private defence cannot be reasonably ruled out here. 15-B. Questions were specially put to eye-witnesses in the cross- examination in this regard Bhole P. W. 6, who is alleged to have snatched knife from the hand of Rashid soon after the occurrence, stated that no injury was seen by him on the body of Rashid at the place of occurrence, that there was no bleeding on the left palm of Rashid, that no injury was caused to Rashid when he snatched knife from his hand, and that his hand was tied with a "gamchha" and took him to Police Station Kotwali. Iftikhar Ahmad P. W. 1 stated that at the time of occurrence Rashid was not hit by Barna or knife and that he was also not hit while was being apprehended. P. W. 5 Kallan has stated that he saw bleeding over the right hand of Rashid and it was the blood of Razzak and that he did not see any injury over the body of Rashid. After considering the above statements, we are of the opinion that Rashid had received injuries over his body by some hard blunt object and sharp edged weapon like knife etc. at the time of occurrence and these injuries were not caused by any bystander at the time of occurrence. 15-C. We, thus, hold that the accused has sustained injuries in the course of the same occurrence but the prosecution has failed to give any explanation in respect of such injuries. 16. The prosecution witnesses have stated that there was no motive for assault. 16. 1. The appellant had taken a stand that it was Razzak who firstly inflicted knife injury on him and when he snatched knife and threw it, he started beating him with "barna". 16. The prosecution witnesses have stated that there was no motive for assault. 16. 1. The appellant had taken a stand that it was Razzak who firstly inflicted knife injury on him and when he snatched knife and threw it, he started beating him with "barna". There is a contusion swelling at right upper thigh and other contusion on the right side of head and abraded contusion on the back and incised wound on the left palm of the appellant as it is clear from injury report (Ext. Kha-1 ). 16. 2. The appellant has taken a plea that it was the mad man who stabbed Razzak. However, from the statements made by the prosecution witnesses and the defence witnesses it comes out that the appellant in a sudden quarrel, had given a knife blow to Razzak for warding of the assault by Razzak with barna. This incident took place suddenly. 16. 3. We find and hold that the prosecution had failed to explain the injuries of the appellant and that the plea of self-defence was available to the appellant in order to ward of the attack on him by Barna which is a hard blunt object. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution was not required to explain injuries over the person of the accused. continuously beating by hard blunt object and it reasonably caused apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence. We come to a conclusion that in exercise of right of his private defence the appellant had inflicted knife blow to ward of the assault of barna by the deceased. 16. 5. We are of the considered view that the appellant was thus entitled to the benefit of self-defence as provided under Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in holding that the plea of such defence is not available. 17. In the result we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order and acquit the appellant of the charge framed against him. 18. The appellant is already on bail. We cancel the bail bonds and discharge the sureties. 19. Let a copy of this judgment and order be forthwith dispatched to the Court below. Appeal allowed. .